BRYAN

I.  Thomas Bryan, of Aylesbury, England, bapt. There Sept. 29^th, 1602.  His w. was Anna, only child of Robert and Joane ------ Baldwin.

Note.—It is not quite clear whether this was the wife of Thomas or his son, Alexander.

II.  Alexander Bryan, son of the above, d. in 1679.  He was a prominent merchant of Milford, Conn., and with his son, Richard, stood in such high credit at Boston that his note of hand passed current as bank bills in the present day, says Lambert.  From 1663 to 1673 he was assistant Governor of the Colony of Connecticut and in Milford was one of the purchase trustees.  The Hon. Alexander Bryan was from Ashton Clinton, Bucks., England.

III.  Richard Bryan, son of the above, m. Mary, dau. Of William and Margaret ------ Peyntree.  On his death William Peyntree left a large estate for those days, inventoried, 29 Nov., 1649, at £1001 –10 – 00, part of which went to his “daughter Mary, wife of Richard Bryan of Milford, Conn.”

IV.  Mary Bryan, b. in 1649, m., first, about 1671, Mr. John Maltby of New Haven.  He was reported dead before 1677.  About 1680, she m., second, Rev. Joseph Talyor of Southampton, Long Island, who d. 4 April, 1682, aged 31.  She m., third, 30 Jany., 1690, John Howell, Jr., of Southampton, L., I., who died 8 March, 1692, aged 44.

Ref. Hew England Hist. and Gen. Gen. Reg. p. 73, Vol. LXIV.; Milford Records, 3 Vol., p. 188; Thompson’s Hist of Long Island; Baldwin Gen.; Old M.S. by Rev. Jonathon (4) Maltby.

The only one of the three emigrant brothers known to have left male descendents was William Maltby, Esq., b. in 1644-5, as we know from his tombstone.*  Before taking up an account of his life it will be well to compare the family of John and Mary Maltby of East Retford with the New England emigrants and also to note the names of the children of William Maltby.  (The full genealogy is given in Part I., Pedigree X.)  We find: John Maltby, Springthrope and East Retford, Notts, Alderman, with wife, Mary -----.  His will proved in 1647-8.  His children were:

1.      John Maltby, probably b. 1640-41

2.      Richard Maltby, bapt. 15 Aug., 1642, at Retford, evidently d. young.

3.      Jane Maltby, eldest daughter.

4.      William Maltby, bapt. 16 March, 1644-45, at Retford, Notts.

5.      Elizabeth Maltby, youngest daughter.

6.      Robert Maltby, bapt. 28 Dec., 1647, at Retford, Notts.

The Births of John, Jand and Elizabeth are not recorded at Retford, consequently they were probably older that Richard, William and of course, Robert.

Let us now look at the list of children of William Maltby, emigrant, and his first wife name, unknown (if his second wife, Hannah Hosmer, wid. Of Josiah Willard, had children we have not been able to ascertain it) and of his third wife, Abigail, dau. Of Deputy Governor James Bishop.  Children by first wife:

1.      John Maltby, said to have been b. 1670.  (We believe named for William’s father, John, of East Retford.)

2.      James Maltby, b. probably about 1670-71.  She m. in 1689-90. (Was she named for their sister, Jane?)

3.      Mary Maltby, b. May 1, 1672.  (We believe named for William’s mother.  Mary Maltby of Retford, perhaps also for his wife.)

4.      William Maltby, b. 1673.  (Named for himself.)

5.      Elizabeth Maltby,* b. April 30, 1676.  (Was this for his sister Elizabeth?)

*Note—This statement is ambiguous.  It should read that so far as is known Americans by the name of Maltby descend from William, Esq.—for we know of no descendants of Robert, and the line of John (1) soon failed of male issue.

6.   Daniel Maltby,* b. May 19, 1679.  (Was this not for a favorite cousin, Daniel Maltby, of Doncaster, Gent.)

Children by third wife, Abigail Bishop:

7.   Samuel Maltby, b. 1693.

8.   Jonathon Maltby, b. 1698.  These may have been Bishop family names.

Hannah Hosmer was b. about 1639 and m. March 20, 1657.  Josiah Willard of Wethersfield; as he did not die until 1674 his widow could not have been the mother of William Maltby’s four children, John, Jane, Mary and William.  But she could have been the mother of Elizabeth, b. in 1676, and of Daniel, b. in 1679.  The question is, was she?  Between the years 1674 and 1685 we find no record of Hannah Hosmer.  There can be no questioning the statement that she was William Maltby’s wife, for in Mainwaring’s Digest of Probate Records in Hartford County.  Vol. I., p. 324, is the will Thomas Hosmer, dated “27 Feb., 1685” and in it he mentions: “I give unto my daughter, Hannah Malby, £18, which is the Reversio due me out of the estate of Josiah Willard of Wethersfield.  I give unto my son-in-law, Malby, £5.” .    .    . “If any of my children shall bring up their children to learning so as to make them fit for publique service, to each such gr. Child I bequeathe £10 apiece to be paid them at the age of 21 years,”  .    .    . “I give my daughter, Hannah Malby, 40 shillings in money and in case she live to be a widow and in want, I do bequeath her £20 more, to be paid her as she needs it.

Signed: Thomas Hosmer.

Proved, 1 Sept., 1687.

Thus we find in 1685 her father mentions her as Hannah Malby; in 1686, Savage Gen. Dict., calls her wife of William Maltby; in 1687-8, we find her name with William Maltby’s on the list of church members in Branford, Conn.; in 1689-90, a deed for John Yale is witnessed by “William Maltbie,” “Hannah Maltbie.”

These are the only references found concerning her.  A word as to the Hasmer family into which William Maltby married.  Savage Gen. Dict. Gives: “Hosmer, Thomas, Cambridge, 1632, then called Newton; brother of the first James, freeman, 6 May, 1635; removed early, with Hooker, to Hartford, where he had a good estate; selectman and representative several times; had an only son, Stephen, b. about 1645; daus. Hannah, b. about 1639, who m., 20 March, 1657, Josiah Willard of Wethersfield; he d. 1674.  They were m. at Concord and had Samuel and Josiah at Hartford where he was schoolmaster and so employed at Wethersfield, where he had Dorothy, Simon, Stephen, Thomas, John and Hannah; freeman 1665; because a trader, d. insolv.; in 1686 his widow was sife of Maltby.”

The Hosmers were from Hawkhurst, Co. Kent., where the records of their family go back to 1066.  (Vide Note No. 1809-1 by M. H. H. Bl, Boston Transcript, Sept. 28, 1914.)  The earliest record possessed by the compiler is of Stephen Hosmer who was buried at Hawkhurst, Kent, May 24, 1633.  His wife, Dorothy, was buried there Feb. 5, 1640, and are buried in the churchyard of the old St. Lawrence Church, built in A. D. 1291.  Their son, Thomas Hosmer, was born at Hawkhurst n 1603.  Frances, his wife, was born in 1602 (Saybrook, Conn., Record, Vol. I., p. 130, but 1600 according to Boston Transcript).  Thomas Hosmer came from London to Cambridge, Mass., in 1635 (Saybrook Record, or 1632,  according to the Transcript).  He died April 12, 1687 and his wife died Feb. 15, 1675.  Their daughter, Hannah, as we have shown, was the second wife of William Maltby.

These Hosmer records are given to show into what class of society our ancestor married, and we find that his third wife was of an equal station in life.  Abigail, daughter of Debuty Governor James Bishop, and widow of John Talmadge.  She married John Talmadge in 1686.  His inventory was taken April 21, 1691.  Abigail Bishop was born in 1659.  “Mrs. Abigail Maltbei d. Oct. 24, 1710.”  See tombstone.

Bishop is a name closely associated with the Maltby family of Springthorpe, etc., from whom we claim descent.  In fact if this pedigree is correct, as we believe it is, then the emigrant Maltbys had for their grandmother, a Bishop—Margaret Bishop, who had a brother Richard and also a brother Robert.  In fact it would appear that the name Robert in the Maltby family came from the Bishops.

We have endeavored to show from the names of William Maltby’s children that there was a very close similarity with those of his father’s family, taking it for granted that John Maltby of East Retford was his father.  The fact that this John Maltby died when his three sons were but very small children, aged respectively about eight, four and a month or two old, would account for the fact that we find no records in New England calling the emigrant Maltbys “sons of ---- Maltby,’ as was the case with so many of the early settlers.  Another very strong proof that the East Retford Maltbys were the ancestors of the emigrants is the fact that out of the vast number of Maltby records found, the only William Maltby born in 1644-45 (which is the year the emigrant William Maltby was born as is proved by his tombstone) is William Maltby, son of John and Mary ----- Maltby, born at East Retford, March 16, 1644-45.

Another strong piece of evidence is the fact that no Maltby was assessed at Retford to the Hearth Tax of  1663.  No Maltby was taxed at Bawtry circ. 1671.  In fact there is every reason to believe that the John, William and Robert of East Retford, are the John, William and Robert of New England, and thus far nothing can be found to disprove this theory.

Some of the ground covered by Mr. Fothergill in his researches for this Maltby material included: Feet of Fines, Yorkshire, 1603-1666;  Feet of Fines Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire and Mixed Counties, 1659-1673; Chancery proceedings, 1558-1758, Plaintiff’s side only; Inquisitins, Post Mortem, 1558-1649; Lay Subsidy Rolls, Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire Close Rolls; Prerogative Court of Canterbury, 1604-1719; Exchcquer Proceedings, Nottinghamshire; King’s Bench Deeds, 1656-1675;  Indentures, 1647-1671; Yorkshire Marriage Licenses; Wills at Yorkshire, 1636-1700; Baga de Secretic.

As, to the lay mind, many of the above terms convey no intelligence, a short explanation is appended.

Pedes Finium, or Feet of Fines.—The conveyance of land by Feet of Fines was very often resorted to; they are of first class importance, as the vendor joins with his wife and children or other heirs in order to dock, dower or entail.  (For example se under date 1662, Part I.)

Chancery Proceeding.—The pleadings in the Court of Chancery are of the highest importance as sources of genealogical information, some of them giving as many as nine generations of pedigree, and others even give abstracts of all the deeds in the family muniment room for three hundred years.  Besides the general value, they are of great help to Americans, as setting out a claim by descent, they frequently account for some missing relative, by stating that he is now in America in parts beyond the seas.  These documents are practically a virgin field, never having been worked out suit by suit as Mr. Waters did the wills in the P. C. C.,  It will be observed that Mr. Fothergill searched the plaintiff side only.  The chancery suits on the defendant side should be searched but it requires much time, as only the plaintiff side is alphabetically arranged and we had not the funds to render this possible.

Inquisitions Post Mortem.—These give information about the larger land owners and are well known as one of the best sources of genealogy.  (For example see under date 1585, Part I.)

Lay Subsidy Rolls and Hearth Tax returns are useful, as they serve as a directory, giving a clue to the parish.  (Example: “No Maltby in Subsidy, 15 Car. II, 1663-64 at Corringham, I40-751.)

Close Rolls.—To explain this we quote from “Some Special Studies in Genealogy,” by Gerald Fothergill, Esq., from whose works all the explanations of terms have been taken.

“It seems probable that, in order to find capital for the start in the New World, the emigrant would sell any land he possessed; or, if he was without land, it is to be expected that his father would, on giving him a portion, re-settle his estate, and the departing son would join in any conveyance in order to cut any rights he might have in possession or expectancy under any entail that existed.  Here it should be noted that men of very small estates, even cottagers, would strictly entail and settle property on themselves and wife with reversion to the eldest son and heirs, and failing these, to the second, third and fourth sons, etc., respectively.

“At different periods the English law has known various ways of conveyancing.  The statute, 27 Henry VIII., cap. 16, provided an instrument known as a ‘deed of bargain and sale.’ And it was enacted that an estate should not pass by this means only unless it was by indenture enrolled in one of the Courts of Westchester or in the county where the lands lie.  If this provision had not been evaded, we should have had an almost universal register of conveyances of the freehold, but it was soon defeated by the invention of the conveyance of lease and release, which arose from the omission to extend the statute to bargains and sales for terms of years.

Many thousands of the former deeds are enrolled in Chancery on the Close Rolls, the grantors being indexed in the books called ‘Indentures.’ Kept in the Long Room, and the grantees in the Close Rolls index in the Round Room at the Record Office.  Others are on the rolls of the King’s Bench, Common  Pleas, Exchequer, etc.

The great attack on the (English) records should start with the wills, they being the very backbone of all pedigree research.  By far and away the most important set of wills are those proved in the prerogative Court of Canterbury (P. C. C.); these commence in 1383, and continue to 1858.  The P. C. C. contains the wills from all parts of England during the Commonwealth, 1650 to 1660.”

As is shown in Part I., we have received in the neighborhood of a hundred abstracts from Maltby Wills, and as before stated, none of them (except the East Retford family) can be made to fit our needs, whereas the wills, deeds, etc., of the East Retford family do dovetail in every respect with the history of the New England Maltbys.

In Part I. we gave chronologically these wills, but for the benefit of the American Maltbys it has seemed best to give the complete abstracts as Mr. Fothergill sent them here.

First, it may be well to state that the ancestry of John, William and Robert of East Retford, has been traced by wills to John Maltby of Kexbie Hall, Kexbie, Lincolnshire, Will proved 1557, so he was probably born about 1500.  Who his father was is not known, possibly William Maltby of Ingham, Will dated 15 Aug., 1547, which mentions son Robert, daughters, Elizabeth and Katherine, Mr. Thomas Burton to be supervised.  Wife Isabell and son John to be exors.  John Jackson, John Colson, William Grave, Witnesses.  Proved in Arch. Stow, 3 Feby., 1547-8, folio 477.

The only reasons for believing this William Maltby to have been the father of John of Kexbie is the fact that John names a daughter Izabell, perhaps for his mother as his wife was Margerie.  However, the proved line of descent is as follows:

I.                            John Maltby of Kexbie Hall, Kexbie, Lincolnshire.  Wite, Margerie ----.  Will proved 3 Dec., 1557.

II.                          Richard Maultbye (son of the above), Kexbie, Lincolnshire.  Will proved last December, 1602.

III.                       John Maltbie of Springthorpe, Lincoln.  Wife, Margaret.  Will proved 25 June, 1610.

IV.                       John Maltby of East Retford, Nottingham, Alderman, Wife, Mary.  Will proved April, 1648.

V.                         John, oldest on, b. about 1640; William, second son, b. March 16, 1644-45; Robert, youngest son, b. Dec. 28, 1648.  (They had a brother, Richard, b. 15 Aug., 1642; d. 7 Aug. 1647-8; also a sister Jane and a sister Elizabeth.)

The wills which we now give prove this pedigree to be correct:

I.  Abstract of Will of John Maltby of Kexbie Hall.  Dated 26 Nov., 1557.  Burial at Upton.  Alice Huggan, Richard Burr, Elizabeth Burr, Izabell Jackson.  Daughters, Margaret, Izabell.*  Wife Margerie & son Richard to be exors.  Sons Richard & William.  Will Proctor & Christopher§ Maultby to be supervisors. Richard Parke, Richard Watkinson, Myles Proctor, Roger Dunderdale, Witnesses.  Proved in Cons. Of Lincoln, 3 Dec., 1557, 31.

* From the Upton burials we have this record: “Buried at Upton, Isabell Maltby, 20 May, 1586.”

§Christopher. Maltby was evidently a kinsman, and may have been Christopher Maltby, Alderman of York, as it seems probably that the two families join not far back of this date.

II.  Abstract of Will of Richard Maultbye, the elder,* of Kexbie.  10 Dec., 1602.  My children’s children.  Son Christopher.§  Richard Towne, junior, Elizabeth Smith.  Mary Greathead.  Daughters Ellen Quipp.  Margaret Wilkinson.  Son John, both my cottages in Springthorpe, paying to Christopher, my son, £10.  My Lord Willoubie.  Christopher, five acres in Bardicke Close.  Son Richard to be exor.  John Quipp, Richard Wilkinson, John Maultbie, Witnesses.  Proved in Arch. Stow, ult., Dec., 1602, 256.

* Richard Maltby, “the elder.”  This is a similar instance as “Robert Maltbye, Sen., and Robert Maltby, Jun.,” in New Haven.  Richard Maltby had a nephew, Richard, son of William, of Kexbie.  (See Pedigree XV., Part I.)

§Here again we find the name Christopher being handed down.

III.  Abstract of  Will of John Maltby of Springthorpe, Co. Lincoln, yeoman.  Dated 20 May.  Eldest son, Richard¹, massuage I dwell in as I had it from my late father, Richard Maltbie, of Kexbie, but my wife, Margaret, shall occupy for ten years.  Son John, two cottage houses in Springthorpe, now in tenure of Thomas Ellis & Richard Tythwell & one oxgang* of land purchased of Richard Parker of Springthorpe.  Son, William, one cottage in Springthorpe in tenure of Henry Parish & oxgang purchased of Richard Parke.  Eldest son, Richard, land called Fisher’s Garth.  Son Robert, £40, when 21.  Son John, £15.  Son William, £15.  Daughter Margaret, if she please my wife* and her uncles, Richard Maltbie of Kexbie, and Richard Bishop of Upton, in choice of her husband, 60.  Daughter Ellen, 40, when 21.  Daughter Marie, 40 when 21.  Residue to Margaret, my wife & to be exex.  John Quipp, John Farmery, Richard Neeson, Richard Wilkinson.  Richard Bishop, Richard Maltby, Witnesses.  Sons John and William under 21.  Proved in Arch Stow, 25 June, 1610, by the exex.  Bond of the exex. With Robert Bishop of Sterrton, Co. Notts., yeoman & Richard Bishop of Upton.  Folio 55.

Note.-- Richard Maltby was bapt. 24 Feb. 1592-3, at Springthorpe.

Note.—John Maltby was probably quite a few years the junior of Richard, as there were several children that died (not mentioned, of course, in the will) whose births are recorded at Springthorpe, namely, Jane, b. 1594, d. 1594; Alice, b. 1598, d. 1609; Elizabeth, b. 1599-1600.

Note.—William Maltby Maltby was bapt. In 1606.

Note.—Robert was bapt. In 1609.

Note.—Hellen Maltby, bapt. 1595.

IV.  Abstract of Will of John Maltby of East Retford, Co. Nottingham, Alderman.  Dated 6 Oct., 1647.  Eldest son, John Maltby, house in Briggate, E. Retford, Carr Lane, close in Little Bringley in Clarborough.*  Second son, William§, my lands in Springthorpe and Little Corringham, Co. Lincoln.  Eldest daughter, Jane Maltby, £100, under 21.  Brother, Robert Maultby, of Bawtry. Younger daughter, Elizabeth Maltby, 100.  Mrs. Anne Mason, godmother of Elizabeth.  Child my wife is now with, £50.  Wife, Mary, to hold my houses during the nonage of my sons, Jon and William to have the residue and to be exor.  Sister, Ellin Chatterton, 10/--.  Nephew, John Maltby, 10/--.  Servant, Alice Moore, 20/--.  Poor of Springthorpe, 20/--.  Brother, Robert, friends, Nie Dickens, of Saundley, clk., and Beaumont Sutton of E. Retford, gent., to be overseers.  Anne Stounton, Tho. Maulby,+ Wits.  Codicil, 28 Dec., 1647.  House in Briggate to be sold and 100 to son, John, at 21, and the residue for my youngest son lately born.  Tho. Biggs, Tho. Maltby.  P. C. Y., April, 1648.  Filed Will.

Note.—From the East Retford baptisms we know that this son was Robert, bapt. 28 Dec., 1647.  John Maltby also had a child, Richard, bapt. 15 Aug., 1642, d. 7 Aug., 1647.  John Maltby d. “4 Jan., 1647-8, East Retford Burials.”

*As the term “oxgang” is old English, we insert Webster’s definition of this word.  “Oxgang (from ox and gang) old English laws.  As much land as an ox can plow in a season; said to be 15 acres, or as others allege, 20 acres.”

§John Maltby’s wife, Margaret, was very evidently Margaret Bishop, a sister of Richard and Robert Bishop.  John Maltby was buried at Springthorpe, 27 May, 1610.

The foregoing records show our claim to four generations of Maltby ancestors in England and brings us to the New World and the founding of new ties and homes.  How the Maltbys were regarded by their neighbors and posterity may be best shown by quoting from various sources, viz.:

The “Dwight Strong Benealogy,” p. 354, states: “John Maltby, Sr., came with his brother, William, both of the rank of ‘gentleman,’ from Yorkshire, England, to New Haven, about 1670.

The New Haven Hist. Soc. Papers, Vol. III., p. 265 in “Baldwin’s Brantford Annals,” gives: “Among the men who came to Branford soon after the Newark exodus” (about 1666) “were Eleazer Stent, William Rosewell, William Maltbie and Samuel Pond.  They became especially prominent,” and on p. 270: “The Wilfords, Mautlbie, Barkers and Johnsons, that are leading names in Brantford at this time, were of the merchant class and apparently wealthy.  They became large land holders.

“The society at Branford at this time must have been most select, comprising the governor and others named,” etc.  Also on page 300: “Large and most substantial houses were erected by the new settlers, some of whom were possessed of considerable property.  This was especially true of the Bartholomews, Maltbies, Wilfords, Greys, Stents, Goulds, Bakers.” (query, Barkers?) “Barnes and Blackstones. . . .  The Hoadley, Maltbie, Rose, Foote and Harrison families present so many names that were prominently identified with the church, town and business during this period, time fails me to speak individually of them.”

Rev. Jonathon (4) Maltby, b. in 1759, stated that William and John Maltby came from London, England.

“The History and Antiquities of New England, New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania,” by John Warner Barker, makes the following statement: “The New Haven Adventurers were the most opulent company which came to New England.”

It will be observed that William Maltby is generally alluded to with a title of respect, such as “Mr,” “Judge,” “Esquire,” etc.

A word as to the importance of these titles of respect and of their value in the early days will help us to appreciate just how much they meant in colonial days.  We quote from a volume’ of New Haven records under “Preliminary Remarks,”:  “Mr. and Mrs. Anciently indicated rank, and had no reference to condition.  Mrs. Was often applied to unmarried as to married females.  Among the first settlers of New Haven, or any other town, scarcel half a dozen men were honored with the prefix Mr.  The common prefix was Goodman and Goodwoman, contracted into Good’n and Good’y junior had no reference to father and son but meant simply younger, Marriages were anciently confirmed by magistrates and clergymen seldom performed the ceremony before the year 1700.”  Another reference to this same subject is from the “Tuttle Family Genealogy”: “The title Hon. Was entirely unknown in our records until 1685, and subsequently for many years was applied only to the governor, and seldom to him.  The next title was that of Esqre., and meant the same as in “England, temp. Elizabeth and Hames I.  Mr. Thomas
Wells was magistrate for 17 years, deputy governor one year and was chosen governor the second time before he was distinguished with Esq.  The next title was Gentleman, but seems to have been soon discarded in Connecticut.  The prefix Master (Mr.) belonged to all gentlemen, including those designated by the higher modes of rank.  Master corresponds bery nearly to the English word gentleman.  In Connecticut it embraced clergymen and planters of good family and estate who were members of the General Court, those bred at a university and those of sufficient education to manage the general affairs of the colony, civil or ecclesiastical, and who had been sufficiently well born.  Comparatively few of the representatives of the town, even though they might be returned year after year, were honored with the title.  To be called Mr. or to have one’s name recorded by the secretary with that prefix 200 years ago was a more certain index of the rank of the individual as respects birth, education and good moral character than anyone of the high sounding titles with which men of no merit whatever, in our day of swift locomotion are content to cajole others in order that they may be enriched in their turn with the same spurious currency.  If may be observed by reference to our colonial records that there were scores of men of good family and in honorable stations who still did not possess the requisite qualities of Master.  It was seldom that young men of whatever rank were called Master.  Sir was sometimes applied to young gentlemen undergraduates at a college.  Mrs. Was applied to the wives of Maters and also to unmarried females of the higher class.”

Note.—Jonathon (2) Maltby’s will calls himself “gentleman.”

“Military titles were considered of a very high order.  Pervious to 1654, the highest  military officer in the colony was captain.”—Hollister’s Hist. of Conn.

Palfry, in “Hist. of New England” says: “There was great punctiliousness in the application of both official and conventional titles.  Only a small number of persons of the best condition (always including ministers and their wives) had Mr. or Mrs. Prefixed to their names. . .  Wm. Bradford, though at the head of the Bridgewater, Mass., proprietor’s a son of the governor, and himself often lieutenant-governor, was not entitled to Mr.”

In “Conn. Hist. Society Pub.” Vol. III., p. 306, there is a sketch of Brandford; in it is the following item: “The principal gentlemen of this town were Mr. Topping, Esq., John Wilford, Wm. Maltbie, Esq., Edward Barker.”

Rocky’s “Hist. of New Haven Colony” gives: “Another settler of prominence was Wm. Maltby, who for a long time was one of the justices of the quorum and usually called Judge Maltby.  Samuel (2) Maltby graduated from Yale and also became prominent in affairs.  Most of this family removed.”

In Dexter’s “Biog. And Annals of Yale College” William Maltby is referred to as “Captain William Maltby,”  He may have had this rank, I do not know.  Savage in his Gen. Dict. Mentions him as “Cornet of New Haven troop,” which is correct as will be shown in later records, and which follow chronologically arranged as far as was possible.

Ralph D. Smith in a letter dated “Guilford, Conn., 1866,” says of William and John Maltby: “They belonged to the rank of gentleman, and were both engaged in commercial pursuits.  John confined his business principally to the sea, William engaged both on the sea and the land.”

Henry Rogers of New Haven, aged 84, wrote the compiler “William Maltby was a justice of the quorum (or judge of the county court) at the time of his death, 1710, and had been for some twelve years before.  He was a man of much influence in his day in Branford. . . .   He was without question or doubt one of the men that were looked upon as the men that were qualified to be the leaders of the people in the government of the colony . . . I noticed his stone at the Branford Cemetery—it looks well.”