Public Auction of John Barton's Planted Oyster Bed in Pelham Bay in 1854

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

It is common to assume that 19th century City Island oystermen planted the waters surrounding City Island, then part of the Town of Pelham, with oysters.  That was not, however, always the case.  Oysterman John Barton presents an excellent example.

John Barton was a resident of New York City in the early 1850s.  He had a wife, Elizabeth, and three children:  Elizabeth (born about 1850), Cynthia (born about 1852), and Clorinda (born about October, 1853).  Barton planted and maintained a large oyster bed containing about two thousand bushels of oysters on the northerly side of Pelham Bay about half a mile below Pelham Bridge.

Barton died in New York City without leaving a will on November 19, 1853, leaving behind his wife three daughters.  He died at about the time of the birth of his daughter, Clorinda.  It appears that his principal asset at the time of his death was his planted oyster bed in Pelham Bay in the Town of Pelham.  Barton was buried in Green-Wood Cemetery in Brooklyn.

On February 13, 1854, Elizabeth Barton formally renounced all rights to administer the estate of her deceased husband, John Barton.  On February 18, 1854, The Surrogate's Court, County of New York, appointed the Public Administrator, Peter B. Sweeny, to administer the estate of John Barton.

The Public Administrator seems to have moved with exceptional dispatch to dispose of Barton's estate valued at less than $500 (about $20,000 in today's dollars), presumably because his widow and three daughters had little in the way of assets with which to survive.  Only one week later, on February 25, 1854, an auction notice appeared in the New York Herald.  It provided as follows:

"AUCTION. -- PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR'S SALE OF two thousand bushels of planted oysters, belonging to the estate of John Barton, deceased, as they lay, on the northerly side of Pelham Bay, one half mile below the bridge.  The above oysters will be sold at the public house of Mr. Wells, on City Island, on Tuesday, March 7, at 1 o'clock, P. M. Terms cash.

PETER B. SWEENY.

Public Administrator, 51 Chambers street, N. Y."

Source:  SALES AT AUCTION -- AUCTION -- PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR'S SALE, N.Y. Herald, Feb. 25, 1854, p. 5, col. 5.

No record yet has been located indicating whether the auction was held at the "public house of Mr. Wells, on City Island" nor any results if it was held.  Yet, this brief little slice of Pelham history demonstrates that even in the early days of oystering in Pelham waters, not all oystermen were City Island residents.

*          *          *          *          *

"SALES AT AUCTION.
-----
AUCTION. -- PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR'S SALE OF two thousand bushels of planted oysters, belonging to the estate of John Barton, deceased, as they lay, on the northerly side of Pelham Bay, one half mile below the bridge.  The above oysters will be sold at the public house of Mr. Wells, on City Island, on Tuesday, March 7, at 1 o'clock, P. M. Terms cash.

PETER B. SWEENY.

Public Administrator, 51 Chambers street, N. Y."

Source:  SALES AT AUCTION -- AUCTION -- PUBLIC ADMINISTRATOR'S SALE, N.Y. Herald, Feb. 25, 1854, p. 5, col. 5.  

*          *          *          *          *

Page 001 of Petition for Letters of Administration for

Estate of John Barton.  Source:  Petition for Letters

of Administration of John Barton in New York Surrogate's Court,

New York County, Box 0008-28986, Surname:  A-Z, 1854 (New York

County, New York) p. 1 of 3 (Note: Paid subscription required to access

via this link).  NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

"Surrogate's Court.
-----
In the Matter of the Administration of 
John Barton
Deceased.

Petition, &c.

[Signed] H. Henderson, Proctor."

Source:  Petition for Letters of Administration of John Barton in New York Surrogate's Court, New York County, Box 0008-28986, Surname:  A-Z, 1854 (New York County, New York) p. 1 of 3 (Note: Paid subscription required to access via this link).

Page 002 of Petition for Letters of Administration for Estate

of John Barton.  Petition for Letters of Administration of John Barton

in New York Surrogate's Court, New York County, Box 0008-28986,

Surname: A-Z, 1854 (New York County, New York) p. 2 of 3 (Note:

Paid subscription required to access via this link).

NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

"Surrogate's Court. -- County of New-York.
-----
In the Matter of the Administration of the Goods, Chattels and Credits of
John Barton, 
Deceased.
-----

To the Surrogate of the County of New-York.

The petition of Peter B. Sweeny the Public Administrator in the City of New York, 

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: -- upon information & belief as follows

That the petitioner is informed and believes, that John Barton late of the City of New York departed this life at the said City of New York on or about the nineteenth day of November 1853 without leaving any last will and testament, to the knowledge, information or belief of the petitioner; and that said deceased died possessed of certain personal property in the State of New-York, the value of which does not exceed the sum of about Five hundred Dollars -- dollars, as your petitioner has been informed and believes.  That the said deceased has left him surviving a widow Elizabeth Barton and three children ^ all minors ^ to wit Cynthia aged four years Elizabeth aged two years and Clorinda aged four months -- 

That said deceased was at, or immediately previous to his death a resident in the City and County of New York -- by means whereof the ordering and granting administration of all and singular the goods, chattels and credits whereof said deceased died possessed in said State, and also the auditing, allowing and final discharging the accounts thereof, belong unto the Surrogate of the said County.  [Following is struck through:  That your petitioner has caused the notice to be served and published as is required by law, and as approved by affidavits accompanying this petition.]

Your petitioner therefore prays that you will appoint him administrator of all and singular the goods, chattels and creidts which were of said John Barton deceased.

Peter B. Sweeny
Public Administrator in the City of New-York.

H. Henderson, PROCTOR.

STATE OF NEW-YORK          }
                                                }  ss.
City and County of New-York  }

On the 18th day of February A. D. 1854 before me came the above named Peter B. Sweeny and made oath that he has read the foregoing petition subscribed b] David y him, and knows the contents thereof, and that the same is true of his own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated to be on his information or belief; and as to those matters, that he believes it to be true.

[Signed] David M. Sweeny
Comm'r [Illegible]"

Source: Petition for Letters of Administration of John Barton in New York Surrogate's Court, New York County, Box 0008-28986, Surname: A-Z, 1854 (New York County, New York) p. 2 of 3 (Note: Paid subscription required to access via this link).

Page 003 of Petition for Letters of Administration for Estate

of John Barton.  Source:  Petition for Letters of Administration of

John Barton in New York Surrogate's Court, New York County, Box

0008-28986, Surname: A-Z, 1854 (New York County, New York)

p. 3 of 3 (Note: Paid subscription required to access via this link).

NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

"Surrogate's Court
County of New York
In the Matter of the goods &c
John Barton dec'd

I Elizabeth Barton of the city of New York widow of John Barton late of the city of New York deceased do hereby renounce all right and claim to administration of the goods, chattels and credits of the said intestate -- 

Witness my hand New York aforesaid this 13th day of February A.D. 1854,

Signed in the
Presence of
Marcus B. Butter

[Signed] Elizabeth Barton

City and County of New York

Marcus B. Butter of said city being duly sworn doth depose and say that he is a resident of the [Following is struck through city and County] County of Richmond and State of New York that he knows Elizabeth Barton the person described in and who executed the foregoing renunciation that he saw her sign the same and that he subscribed his name as a witness thereto.

James M. Sweeny
Comm'r of [Illegible]"

Source:  Petition for Letters of Administration of John Barton in New York Surrogate's Court, New York County, Box 0008-28986, Surname: A-Z, 1854 (New York County, New York) p. 3 of 3 (Note: Paid subscription required to access via this link).

Letters of Administration Appointing New York City Public

Administrator Peter B. Sweeny as Administrator of Estate

of John Barton Who Died Intestate.  Source:   Letters of Administration

of John Barton in New York Surrogate's Court, New York County,

Letters of Administration (New York County, New York), 1743-1866;

Index, 1743-1910:  Letters, Vol. 58 (1853-1854), p. 309 (Note:  Paid

subscription required to access via this link).

NOTE:  Click on Image to Enlarge.

"TO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW-YORK

Peter B. Sweeny, the Public Administrator in the City of New-York.

SEND GREETING

Whereas, John Barton lately departed this life intestate, living aat or immediately previous to his heath an inhabitant of the County of New York, by means whereof the ordering and granting Administration of all and singular the goods, chattels, and credits, whereof the said intestate died possessed in the State of New York, and also the auditing, allowing and final discharging the account thereof, doth appertain unto us; and we being desirous that the goods, chattels and credits of the said intestate may be well and faithfully administered, applied and disposed of, do grant unto you, the said Peter B. Sweeny, Public Administrator aforesaid full power, by these presents, to administer and faithfully dispose of all and singular the said goods, chattels and credits:  to ask, demand, recover and receive the debts, which unto the said intestate whilst living, and at the time of his death did belong; the debts which the said intestate did owe, as far as such goods, chattels and credits will thereunto extend and the law require; hereby requiring you to make or cause to be made, a true and perfect Inventory of all and singular the goods, chattels and credits of the said intestate, within a reasonable time, and return a duplicate thereof to our Surrogate of the County of New York, within three months from the date of these presents; and if further personal property, or assets of any kind not mentioned in any Inventory that shall have been so made, shall come to your possession or knowledge, to make or cause to be made in like manner, a true and perfect inventory thereof, and return the same within two months after discovery thereof; and also to render a just and true account of administrqation when thereunto required; and we do by these presents depute, constitute and appoint you the said Peter B. Sweeny, Public Administrator aforesaid, administrator of all and singular the goods, chattels and credits of said John Barton, deceased,

In Testimony whereof, we have caused the Seal of Office of the Surrogate of said County to be hereunto affixed.  WITNESS, ALEXANDER BRADFORD, Surrogate of said County, at the City of New-York, the eighteenth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty four, and of our Independence the seventy eighth.

[Signed] A. B. Bradford,
Surrogate."

Source:  Letters of Administration of John Barton in New York Surrogate's Court, New York County, Letters of Administration (New York County, New York), 1743-1866; Index, 1743-1910:  Letters, Vol. 58 (1853-1854), p. 309 (Note:  Paid subscription required to access via this link).

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.

Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

Oyster War Involving City Island Oystermen Against Connecticut Oystermen in 1873-75

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.

Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.

Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

During the late 1860s, a giant natural oyster bed was discovered by oystermen off the harbor of Bridgeport, Connecticut.  Enterprising oystermen throughout the region harvested hundreds of thousands of bushels of seed oysters and carried them to oyster planting grounds in New York, Connecticut, and even New Jersey.  For several years the giant oyster bed served as "a never failing source of supply to the oyster planters" of surrounding states.

In 1873, however, something changed.  Connecticut oystermen "joined together to monopolize" the bed and began to exclude oystermen from other states from harvesting seed oysters -- actually, any oysters -- from the bed.  New York oystermen, including those based on City Island in the Town of Pelham, were furious.  Indeed, they asserted that although the bed was off the harbor of Bridgeport, Connecticut, it actually was located in New York waters.

Yet another oyster war began.

Port Washington, Long Island oystermen were the first to throw down the gauntlet.  On March 15, 1873, a large number of them met formally and voted to approve the following resolutions:

"Whereas the oystermen of the State of Connecticut are endeavoring to prohibit and prevent the oystermen of this place, and others of the State of New York, and who are citizens thereof, from catching seed oysters in certain portions of the waters of Long Island Sound, more especially off the harbor of Bridgeport, as has ever been our custom and right; and whereas we believe said bed of oysters to be within the boundaries of the State of New York, as we are informed by competent counsel and other reliable authority, and none but citizens of this State (New York) have a right to work said bed; and whereas we are satisfied that large quantities of territory belonging to said State of New York have been taken up and planted with oysters in violation of law and the rights of the people of this State, more especially off Norwalk Islands, Shippan, Darien and other places; therefore, be it

Resolved. That, while we are and have ever been willing to share our rights and privileges in common with our neighbors, if the oystermen of Connecticut attempt to deprive us of or curtail those rights, that we, the oystermen and citizens of the State of New York, are determined to resist further encroachments and assert and maintain those rights which belong to us.

Resolved.  That we claim that the bed known as the Bridgeport bed is in New York State waters, and that only the citizens thereof have the right to catch oysters thereon.

Resolved.  That such grounds in this State as have been taken up and planted at Norwalk Island and other places by the oystermen of Connecticut be reclaimed from them for the use of our own citizens.

Resolved.  That a committee of five be appointed to confer with the oystermen of City Island, Oyster Bay, Staten Island, Little Neck and other places to insure co-operation.

A considerable sum of money was then raised and the meeting adjourned to meet at the call of the Chair."

New York oystermen defied their Connecticut brethren and harvested oysters off Bridgeport Harbor.  On Thursday, May 29, 1873, however, things became more heated.  The New York smack Henrietta Scott was harvesting oysters in the area when it was boarded by five men who demanded that the two-man crew of the smack provide some evidence of their "authority" for harvesting oysters in the area.  When no such "evidence" was forthcoming, the five men overpowered the crew of the smack and had a tug tow the smack back to Bridgeport.  There, the men instituted a civil lawsuit alleging trespass on the oyster bed against the captain of the smack, Harry Scott.  Captain Scott was about to become a famous man.

Skirmishes continued and New York oystermen continued to slip in and out of the giant bed.  Within months the New York legislature decided to look at the matter.  The legislature adopted a resolution "calling for information relative to the respective rights of Connecticut and Long Island to the oyster-beds of the Sound."  It seems that the legislature was contemplating enactment of legislation to address not only "a question of boundary between Connecticut and New-York," but also claims under an old colonial charter under which New York claimed its boundary extended to low water mark on the Connecticut shore and Connecticut claimed the boundary line was in the middle of the stream between two shores.  As one Assembly member stated, "the disputed questions involve millions of dollars worth of property, beside excited feeling and prejudice between the residents of the two shores."

The oystermen, of course, could not be bothered to wait for a tortoise-like investigation followed by a log-rolling legislative process.  Oysters and the money they brought were at stake.

New York oystermen continued their assault on oyster beds off the Connecticut shores.  In May of 1874, Connecticut oystermen decided to seek revenge with a counter-attack.  A flotilla of about two hundred oystering vessels descended upon planted oyster beds maintained by the oystermen of Sayville, Long Island.  The Connecticut vessels harvested more than $50,000 worth of oysters from the beds (nearly $1.5 million in today's dollars).  A local newspaper reported:

"The Suffolk County Oyster Planters' Association, of Sayville, composed of about one hundred members, having some 200 acres under lease, near Nichols' Point, have been almost entirely cleaned out, and the Society broken up.  Much indignation is felt over the matter, and it was feared at one time that the parties would come in hostile collision, but milder counsels prevailed, and those who planted under the leases, have resolved to try the uncertain issue of the law for redress.  If the law will allow one man to reap where another man has planted, it is high time, in our estimation, that a stronger and more just law was enacted.  If the people own the bay bottom they own no oysters, except those that grow naturally, and to rob another of oysters, bought, paid for and planted, even though they are planted in the wrong place, and contrary to law is an outrage upon the commonest rights of property.  We hope this matter will be thoroughly sifted and the wrong placed where it belongs."

Cooler heads may have prevailed in that instance, but the oyster war continued for many months.  Indeed, in October, 1875, several New York boats were caught by Connecticut oystermen harvesting oysters off Connecticut shores yet again.  The Connecticut oystermen successfully boarded and seized the New York vessels.  It seemed this brought the matter to a head.  

According to one news report, a truce was announced to allow the civil trespass case against Captain Scott to be decided by the courts and, hopefully, resolve the matter.  The report stated:

"Mr. Bullock, of Bridgeport, counsel for the seizers, received a letter from Mr. Scudder of New York, requesting that no further proceedings be taken toward a condemnation of the boats seized, pending a decision in the courts of 'Scott vs. Ketcham,' the main case to determine the constitutional and jurisdictional rights of Connecticut over the oyster interest.  A consultation was had in New York Wednesday between Judge Shipman, H. J. Scudder, counsel for New York, and Mr. Bullock of Bridgeport, in which it was determined to release the seized boats upon pledges from the New York interest as represented by Mr. Scudder that pending a final adjudication of 'Scott vs. Ketcham,' no encroachments upon the oyster beds of our coast by New York parties shall again occur, and upon further pledges by the owners of the boats seized that their boats should not be permitted to return.  It is therefore well understood that Connecticut oystermen shall be no further annoyed by non-residents or oyster boats owned outside of the State.  The first hearing -- 'Scott vs. Ketcham,' probably will be had during the Autumn.  The schooner Undine was the first to be released, and the other boats now held will soon be realized." 

Yet another oyster war was paused.  Scott vs. Ketcham, it seems, is a story of its own -- to be continued. . . . . 

*          *          *          *          *

"OYSTER CONTROVERSY BETWEEN TWO STATES. -- 

Our readers will recollect that some five years ago there was a large bed of oysters found in the Long Island Sound, off the harbor of Bridgeport, Conn., from which hundreds of thousands of bushels of seed oysters were caught and carried to the different harbors and planting grounds and planted not only in this State, but in New Jersey and Connecticut; since which time said bed has been a never failing source of supply to the oyster planters of these States.  It now appears that though this oyster bed is in New York State boundaries, the oystermen of Connecticut have joined together to monopolize the working of said bed to the utter exclusion of all others, and this without a shadow of law or right.he T  On the other hand, the oystermen of this State are determined to protect their rights and interests, and are holding meetings and raising money to carry the war into Africa.  At a large and earnest meeting of the oystermen of Port Washington, L. I., and vicinity, held at the above place March 15, 1873, the following resolutions were unanimously adopted -- John Mackey, Sr., in the chair, and W. S. Weeks, Secretary: -- 

Whereas the oystermen of the State of Connecticut are endeavoring to prohibit and prevent the oystermen of this place, and others of the State of New York, and who are citizens thereof, from catching seed oysters in certain portions of the waters of Long Island Sound, more especially off the harbor of Bridgeport, as has ever been our custom and right; and whereas we believe said bed of oysters to be within the boundaries of the State of New York, as we are informed by competent counsel and other reliable authority, and none but citizens of this State (New York) have a right to work said bed; and whereas we are satisfied that large quantities of territory belonging to said State of New York have been taken up and planted with oysters in violation of law and the rights of the people of this State, more especially off Norwalk Islands, Shippan, Darien and other places; therefore, be it

Resolved. That, while we are and have ever been willing to share our rights and privileges in common with our neighbors, if the oystermen of Connecticut attempt to deprive us of or curtail those rights, that we, the oystermen and citizens of the State of New York, are determined to resist further encroachments and assert and maintain those rights which belong to us.

Resolved.  That we claim that the bed known as the Bridgeport bed is in New York State waters, and that only the citizens thereof have the right to catch oysters thereon.

Resolved.  That such grounds in this State as have been taken up and planted at Norwalk Island and other places by the oystermen of Connecticut be reclaimed from them for the use of our own citizens.

Resolved.  That a committee of five be appointed to confer with the oystermen of City Island, Oyster Bay, Staten Island, Little Neck and other places to insure co-operation.

A considerable sum of money was then raised and the meeting adjourned to meet at the call of the Chair."

Source:  OYSTER CONTROVERSY BETWEEN TWO STATES [Special Notice], N.Y. Herald, Mar. 25, 1873, No. 13,365, p. 1, col. 2.  

"The oyster boats owned by New York dealers have been withdrawn from the Connecticut coast.  This has been done because the smack Henrietta Scott was captured off Point-no-Point, about five miles from Bridgeport harbor, last Thursday by five men.  The captors say that the foreign boat was dredging for oysters on a forbidden bed.  When asked to show their authority they would not or could not comply; but overpowering the two men on board the Henrietta Scott, towed her to Bridgeport harbor with the tug Knickerbocker, of Bridgeport, with which they had overhauled her.  Harry Scott, captain of the captured vessel, had a suit for trespass instituted against him at Stratford, Conn.  He says, if he is beaten, he will appeal to the United States Court, and make it a test case.  The oystermen throughout the city are ready to fight the matter to the end. -- Sun."
Source:  [Untitled], Queens County Sentinel [Hempstead, NY], Jun. 5, 1873, Vol. 16, No. 1, p. 4, col. 6.  

"ALBANY.
-----
AFFAIRS AT THE STATE CAPITAL. . . . 
THE LONG ISLAND OYSTER WAR. . . .

The resolution offered in the Assembly by Mr. Prince, and adopted, calling for information relative to the respective rights of Connecticut and Long Island to the oyster-beds of the Sound, contemplates further legislation to test the constitutional questions involved.  An appropriation of $1,500 was made in the Supply bill last year to defray the expenses of litigation on the subject, but the terms of the appropriation were not sufficiently broad to cover all the questions that arise in the case.  It is not only a question of boundary between Connecticut and New-York from the use of the oyster-beds.  New-York claims that, under the old Colonial charter, her boundary extends to low water mark on the Connecticut shore, while Connecticut claims that the boundary line is in the middle of the stream between the two shores.  Mr. Prince says the disputed questions involve millions of dollars worth of property, beside excited feeling and prejudice between the residents of the two shores. . . ."

Source:  ALBANY -- AFFAIRS AT THE STATE CAPITAL. . . . THE LONG ISLAND OYSTER WAR, N.Y. Tribune, Jan. 8, 1874, Vol. XXXIII, No. 10,224, p. 1, col. 4.  

"The Oyster War.

Some two weeks since we spoke of a raid made by the oystermen of Brookhaven upon the oyster beds at Sayville, but then, not having the full particulars, we now publish the following lengthy account of the same affair from the Babylon Signal, under the caption of 'An outrage under cover of Law:'

For the past ten or twelve years the oystermen of Sayville have devoted considerable attention to the planting of oysters in the Bay opposite that place, some by authority from Brookhaven, (which town still holds jurisdiction over the waters set off when the town of Islip was formed;) others operated under the oyster act of 1866.  The bottom occupied was taken from portions of the Bay where there were planted, and the business has grown into an important one, many thousands of dollars being ingested in the stocking of the beds.  It seems in the management of this business many planters had not conformed to the strict requirements of the law, in the fact that they had occupied more land than the law allowed, though barren of natural oysters originally.  Acting on this latter fact, the oystermen from different parts of Brookhaven town, with a fleet of 200 boats, appeared on the Sayville beds in April, and have been actively engaged since taking up the oysters planted by the Sayville men.  Remonstrance in some cases prevailed, but not to the extent of saving the oysters, except in some instances where the parties held leases from Brookhaven, but not all of these were respected.  It is estimated that over $50,000 worth of planted oysters have been taken up and carried away by men who never planted an oyster within miles of these beds.  The Suffolk County Oyster Planters' Association, of Sayville, composed of about one hundred members, having some 200 acres under lease, near Nichols' Point, have been almost entirely cleaned out, and the Society broken up.  Much indignation is felt over the matter, and it was feared at one time that the parties would come in hostile collision, but milder counsels prevailed, and those who planted under the leases, have resolved to try the uncertain issue of the law for redress.  If the law will allow one man to reap where another man has planted, it is high time, in our estimation, that a stronger and more just law was enacted.  If the people own the bay bottom they own no oysters, except those that grow naturally, and to rob another of oysters, bought, paid for and planted, even though they are planted in the wrong place, and contrary to law is an outrage upon the commonest rights of property.  We hope this matter will be thoroughly sifted and the wrong placed where it belongs."

Source:  The Oyster War, Sag-Harbor Express [Sag Harbor, Long Island, NY], May 28, 1874, Vol. XV, No. 46, p. 2, col. 5.

"Oyster War.

A few days ago mention was made of the capture in Connecticut waters of several boats owned in New York and engaged in fishing for oysters.  Mr. Bullock, of Bridgeport, counsel for the seizers, received a letter from Mr. Scudder of New York, requesting that no further proceedings be taken toward a condemnation of the boats seized, pending a decision in the courts of 'Scott vs. Ketcham,' the main case to determine the constitutional and jurisdictional rights of Connecticut over the oyster interest.  A consultation was had in New York Wednesday between Judge Shipman, H. J. Scudder, counsel for New York, and Mr. Bullock of Bridgeport, in which it was determined to release the seized boats upon pledges from the New York interest as represented by Mr. Scudder that pending a final adjudication of 'Scott vs. Ketcham,' no encroachments upon the oyster beds of our coast by New York parties shall again occur, and upon further pledges by the owners of the boats seized that their boats should not be permitted to return.  It is therefore well understood that Connecticut oystermen shall be no further annoyed by non-residents or oyster boats owned outside of the State.  The first hearing -- 'Scott vs. Ketcham,' probably will be had during the Autumn.  The schooner Undine was the first to be released, and the other boats now held will soon be realized.  --  New Haven Courier."

Source:  Oyster War, Queens County Sentinel [Hempstead, NY], Oct. 14, 1875, vol. 18, No. 20, p. 2, col. 6.

*          *          *          *          *

The oystering industry was, for decades, a critically-important economic activity in the Town of Pelham.  Many residents of City Island made their living from the industry or ran businesses that catered to the oystermen.  Accordingly, I have written about Pelham oystering and various oyster wars such as that during the 1870s that is the subject of today's article, on many, many occasions.  See, e.g.:

Wed., Jul. 05, 2017:  Pelham's Most Entrepreneurial Oysterman Was Forced To Sell His Steam Engine Oyster Dredge in 1882.

Tue., Jun. 27, 2017:  John E. Price of City Island, One of Pelham's Earliest Commercial Oystermen.

Thu., May 11, 2017:  Nineteenth Century Fake News: Announced Discovery of Another Great Oyster Bed in 1871 Led to a Near "Oyster Riot".

Wed., Mar. 29, 2017:  Important Description of the Oyster Industry in Pelham in 1853.

Thu., Feb. 11, 2016:  Was a City Island Hotel Keeper Among the First to Learn of the Great Oyster Bed Discovered in 1859?

Wed., Jun. 24, 2015:  The 1895 Oyster War Involving City Island Oystermen - Part I.

Thu., Jun. 25, 2015:  The 1895 Oyster War Involving City Island Oystermen - Part II.

Mon., Dec. 01, 2014:  Jury Finds City Island Oystermen Guilty of Stealing Oysters from Planted Bed in 1878.

Tue., Nov. 11, 2014:  Efforts by Herman Le Roy, Jr. of Pelham to Build an Oyster Pond in the 1830's.

Thu., Aug. 07, 2014:  Oysterman Joshua Leviness of City Island Accused of Stealing Oysters Near High Island in 1883.

Tue., Feb. 04, 2014:  Pelham: Once Oyster Capital of the World.

Thu., Mar. 25, 2010:  Discovery of "The Great Oyster Bed" in Long Island Sound in 1859.

Wed., Mar. 24, 2010:  The Oyster War of 1884 Between Glen Cove and City Island Intensifies.

Tue., Mar. 23, 2010:  Yet Another "Oyster War" in 1884; Glen Cove Officials Feud with City Island and Connecticut Oystermen.

Mon., Mar. 22, 2010:  77-Year Old City Island Oysterman Joshua Leviness Reminisces in Testimony Provided in 1884.

Fri., Mar. 19, 2010:  The New York Legislature Stepped Into the Oyster War on Long Island Sound in 1895.

Thu., Mar. 18, 2010:  1859 Town of Huntington Record Reflecting Dispute with City Island Oystermen.

Wed., Mar. 17, 2010:  Report of September 13, 1884 Tour of Oyster Beds by Captain Joshua Leviness of City Island.

Tue., March 16, 2010:  More on 19th Century Oystering in Pelham - Descriptions of Oyster Beds Off Hart Island, City Island and in Pelham Bay Published in 1887.

Mon., Mar. 15, 2010:  More on 19th Century City Island Oyster Industry - City Island Oystermen Complaint of Pollution.

Fri., Mar. 12, 2010:  Early History of Oystering in the Waters Off City Island in the Town of Pelham.

Thu., Mar. 11, 2010:  The "Great Oyster War" Between City Island and Tarrytown in 1877 and 1878.

Thu., Dec. 3, 2009:  Pelham News on May 30, 1884 Including Allegations of Oyster Larceny and Meeting of the Pelhamville Improvement Association.

Mon., July 30, 2007:  1885 Report Notes Decline of Oyster Industry Near City Island in the Town of Pelham.

Fri., Jul. 27, 2007:  Possible Origins of the Oyster Feud Between City Islanders and Huntington, Long Island.

Thu., Jul. 26, 2007:  Pelham's City Island Oystermen Feud with Long Islanders in 1869.

Fri., Apr. 13, 2007:  Oystermen of City Island (When It Was Part of the Town of Pelham) Pioneered Oyster Cultivation.

Fri., Jan. 26, 2007:  A History of the Early Years of City Island When it Was Part of the Town of Pelham, Published in 1927.

Mon., Sep. 18, 2006:  A Brief Description of Oystering in Eastchester Bay and at Pelham Published in 1881.

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.

Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

A Pelham Scandal and Resultant Lawsuit Set Pelham Tongues Wagging in 1885

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."

Twenty-year-old Mary Amelia Ross of City Island seemed to have it all in 1884.  She was the "prettiest girl for miles around."  She was, according to one account, "admired by all the young men" of lower Westchester County.  She was "very highly accomplished" and was a daughter of wealthy City Island oysterman James Ross.

In early 1884, Mary Amelia Ross became the object of the affections of twenty-year-old George Leviness.  Leviness was a son of another wealthy City Island oysterman, Joshua Leviness, and was the proprietor of City Island Hotel.  George Leviness began an "ardent courtship" of Miss Ross.  

Leviness called on the young woman frequently "and took her walking in the evening."  On only the second or third such stroll, George Leviness proposed to Miss Ross who readily accepted his proposal.

Only a few weeks later, George Leviness called on Mary Amelia Ross at her home.  Her parents were away that evening.  During that visit, George Leviness, reportedly "took improper liberties with her under promise of marriage."  Within a few months, Miss Ross was visibly pregnant or, as local newspaper reports put it so delicately, experienced "her condition."  

George Leviness did not deny "improper intimacy" with Miss Ross.  He did, however, deny that he promised to marry her.  Whether he had a change of heart, or never intended to keep his promise, however, young George Leviness refused to marry Miss Ross.  In 1885, Mary Amelia Ross hired a lawyer, Norman A. Lawlor of Mount Vernon, New York.  Lawlor promptly filed a civil lawsuit on his client's behalf against George Leviness seeking $25,000 damages for "seduction under promise of marriage."

Pelhamites became obsessed with the scandal.  According to one news report, "The suit has occasioned considerable of a flutter on the Island and in the town of Pelham, where the persons interested are well-known."  

On Monday, March 15, 1886, the lawsuit filed on behalf of Miss Ross was tried before a jury in the Supreme Court of the State of New York before Justice J. O. Dykman sitting in White Plains.  Once again Leviness "did not deny the improper intimacy, but repudiated the promise to marry."  At the close, the jurors deliberated for only ten minutes before returning a verdict for Miss Ross of $6,000 (about $207,000 in today's dollars).  With interest and costs, the total due from George Leviness was $6,400.

Twenty-one-year-old George Leviness simply did not have the money to pay the judgment.  On Wednesday, June 30, 1886, police served a warrant for "execution against his body" and carted young Leviness off to the White Plains Jail where he was to be kept in jail until he paid the judgment or arranged to have it paid.  Leviness was able to arrange several bondsmen to post his $12,800 bail, but the terms of his bail placed limits on his ability to leave White Plains.

George Leviness lapsed into a routine of remaining in White Plains all week, then quickly returning home to City Island on Sundays before traveling back to White Plains early each Monday to avoid forfeiting the bonds placed by his bondsmen, Frank Vail and Everett Leviness, each of whom posted half of the $12,800 bail.

 Mary Amelia Ross certainly was not finished with George Leviness.  On July 12, 1886 she and her attorneys appeared before a local Judge and swore out a criminal complaint against Leviness charging him with "betrayal."  On Sunday, July 18, two police officials from Eastchester, Thomas Woods and C. T. White, appeared on City Island with an attachment against Leviness on the criminal charge.  They arrested Leviness and tried to haul him before local Justice Edmonds for a bail hearing.  When Justice Edmonds could not be found, Leviness was jailed.

When Frank Vail, one of the two bondsmen who guaranteed half of the bail set for George Leviness in White Plains learned of his arrest, Vail hustled to the Westchester County Sheriff's office and arranged a "surrender" of Leviness to the Sheriff so as not to lose the bond he had placed for Leviness in connection with the civil action judgment that Leviness had failed to pay.  The Sheriff's officer, in turn, hustled to the lockup where Leviness was being held and fought with one of the constables over who had the right to hold Leviness.  In any event, Justice Edmonds was found in the morning and held a bail hearing for Leviness.

At that hearing, an attorney for Mary Amelia Ross appeared and argued that bail on the criminal charge should be placed at $2,000 (in addition to the $12,800 bail already placed in the related matter).  An attorney for Leviness argued that bail on the criminal charge should be $500.  Justice Edmonds decided bail should be $1,000.

Poor George Leviness.  He was returned to White Plains because he was still subject to "the limits" placed in connection with his first bail.  Would he raise the money to pay the $6,400 judgment to Miss Ross?  

The answer, sadly, remains for another day.  Research has not yet revealed how the matter was resolved.  One thing seems certain, however.  George Leviness learned a lesson. . . .

*          *          *          *          *

"CITY ISLAND'S SOCIAL SENSATION.
-----
MISS ROSS, A LOCAL BELLE, SUE FOR $25,000 DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF PROMISE.
[From Yesterday's Edition.]

Assemblyman-elect Norman A. Lawlor has begun a suit for breach of promise for Miss Helen [sic; should be "Mary Amelia"] Ross, aged twenty-one years, against Mr. George Leviness, proprietor of the City Island Hotel, and son of the wealthy oysterman, Joshua Leviness.  Miss Ross is also a resident of City Island and is the daughter of James Ross, an oysterman, who is also quite wealthy.

The young lady claims $25,000 damages.  Miss Ross has been admired by all the young men of that part of the county, and is considered to be the prettiest girl for miles around.  She is small of stature and very highly accomplished.  The suit has occasioned quite a flutter on the Island and in the town of Pelham, where both parties are well known.

In her complaint Miss Ross states that she got acquainted with Mr. Leviness about a year and a half ago, and he began making love to her the first time they went out together for a walk.  She did not at that time fully comprehend his intention:  but as their acquaintance grew and she saw more of him she learned to love him and then to trust him, and then comes the old, old story of loving too carelessly and subsequent desertion.  Of course the people on the Island are not aware of the extremity to which the intimacy went; but in her affidavit Miss Ross states that the intimacy went too far.  He promised to marry her six months ago and has not kept his promise and steadily refuses to do so.

Mr. Leviness denies that he ever promised to marry the young lady, and denies that he is responsible for her condition.  The suit is on the calendar for the December term."

Source:  CITY ISLAND'S SOCIAL SENSATION -- MISS ROSS, A LOCAL BELLE, SUE FOR $25,000 DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF PROMISE, The Daily Graphic [NY, NY], Nov. 23, 1885, p. 147, col. 3.  

"SUING A HOTEL MAN FOR BREACH OF PROMISE.

Assemblyman elect Norman A. Lawlor has begun a suit for breach of promise for Miss Helen Ross, age twenty-one, the daughter of James Ross, an oysterman, against George Leviness, proprietor of the City Island Hotel, and the son of the wealthy oysterman, Joshua Leviness.  The young woman claims $25,000 damages.  The suit has occasioned considerable of a flutter on the Island and in the town of Pelham, where the persons interested are well-known.  The defendant denies that he ever promised to marry Miss Ross."

Source:  SUING A HOTEL MAN FOR BREACH OF PROMISE, New-York Daily Tribune, Nov. 22, 1885, p. 5, col. 1.  

"COURT PROCEEDINGS. . . .

SUPREME COURT. -- CIRCUIT.

Before Hon. J. O. DYKMAN, Justice.

The supreme court convened at the court house on Monday, March 15.  The following cases were tried: . . . 

Mary Amelia Ross against George Leviness. -- This action was for seduction under promise of marriage.  Both parties reside at City Island.  Miss Ross is 20 years old, and is the daughter of a well-to-do oysterman.  George Leviness is 20 years old and is the son of Joshua Leviness, a wealthy resident of the above place.  Leviness made her acquaintance about a year ago, and began an ardent courtship.  He called frequently and took her walking in the evening, and on the second or third occasion made a proposition to marry her, and she accepted him.  A few weeks later he called at her house one evening when her parents were away, and there he took improper liberties with her under promise of marriage.  The defendant did not deny the improper intimacy, but repudiated the promise to marry.  The jury after an absence of ten minutes rendered a verdict for Miss Ross of $6,000. -- Lawlor & Swits, for plaintiff; H. M. Henderson, for defendant."  

Source:  COURT PROCEEDINGS. . . . SUPREME COURT. -- CIRCUIT, The Eastern State Journal [White Plains, NY], Mar. 20, 1886, Vol. XLI, No. 50, p. 2, cols. 2-3.  

"THE COUNTY. . . . 

LODGED IN JAIL. -- George Leviness, of City Island, was taken to White Plains Jail on Wednesday, by Officer Mark Skennion, under an execution against his body, he having failed to pay the sum of $6,400 damages awarded Miss Mary Amelia Ross in her suit in the Supreme Court against Leviness for betrayal under promise of marriage, which he failed to keep.  He will now be kept in jail until he pays up or arranges to have it paid."

Source:  THE COUNTY . . . LODGED IN JAIL, The Yonkers Statesman, Jul. 1, 1886, Vol. III, No. 809, p. 1, col. 4.

"PELHAM AND CITY ISLAND. . . .

George Leviness was taken to White Plains, last week, under an execution for failing to pay the sum of $6,400, awarded to Miss Amelia Ross in her suit for betrayal under promise of marriage. . . ."

Source:  PELHAM AND CITY ISLAND, The Chronicle [Mount Vernon, NY], Jul. 9, 1886, Vol. XVII, No. 896, p. 3, col. 2.  

"LOCAL NEWS. . . .

Geo. Leviness, of City Island, was arrested last Sunday, by Officers Thos. Woods and C. T. White, of Eastchester, on a warrant issued on the 12th inst., by Justice Edmonds.  The complainant was Miss M. A. Ross, and the charge seduction under promise of marriage.  In a civil suit, last spring, Miss Ross obtained a verdict against Leviness for $6,400.  He refused to pay the amount, and an attachment for him was issued, and he was taken to White Plains Jail and locked up.  Subsequently he was admitted to the limits, and Saturday night last went to his home at City Island, where he was arrested on Sunday.  An effort was made to find Justice Edmonds Sunday evening and have Leviness admitted to bail, but he could not be found.  In the meantime Mr. Frank Vail, who was bondsman for Leviness in the sum of $6,400, surrendered him to the Sheriff, and there was quite a lively time between the Sheriff's officer and Officer Woods; the former threatening to take their man away from the constable, but the constable didn't see it in that light.  Monday morning Officer Woods produced his man before the Justice, who after hearing the argument of counsel on both sides, admitted him to bail in the sum of $1,000."

Source:  LOCAL NEWS, The Chronicle [Mount Vernon, NY], Jul. 20, 1886, Vol. XVII, No. 899, p. 3, cols. 1-2.  

"THE COUNTY. . . .

HAVING A HARD TIME. -- George Leviness, of City Island, is 'on the limits' to satisfy a judgment for breach of promise of marriage attained by Miss Amelia Ross.  On Sunday he has been in the habit of going home and returning to White Plains before Monday morning, thus avoiding the forfeiture of his bonds, which are $12,800.  Last Sunday he was arrested on a criminal warrant for betrayal sworn out by Miss Ross, and taken to Mount Vernon, where he was detained until Monday morning.  His bondsmen then surrendered him.  He subsequently gave bail in $1,000 and returned to his limits. . . ."

Source:  THE COUNTY. . . . HAVING A HARD TIME, The Yonkers Statesman, Jul. 20, 1886, Vol. III, No. 824, p. 1, col. 4.  

"Arrest of George Leviness.

George Leviness, of City Island, who is on the limits at White Plains, in default of payment of a judgment of $6,000, visited home last Sunday.  In the afternoon Officers Wood and White drove over to City Island and arrested him on a criminal warrant, for the same case for which he was on the limits.  On their return to this village with Mr. Leviness, they could not find Justice Edmonds, and prisoner was held.  In the morning the prisoner was brought before Justice Edmonds When H. C. Henderson, Esq., of Westchester, appeared for Leviness, and Messrs. Lawlor & Swite, Jr., of Mount Vernon, for plaintiff, Miss Ross.  Leviness pleaded not guilty and waived an examination, and offered Messrs. Frank Vail and Everett Leviness as bondsmen.  Attorney Lawlor requested that bail be placed at $2,000.  Attorney Henderson argued for $500, in view of the $13,000 bail under which he is held.  After a patient listening to learned counsel on both sides, His Honor put the amount at $1,000. -- Record."

Source:  Arrest of George Leviness, New Rochelle Pioneer, Jul. 24, 1886, p. 3, col. 5.

Archive of the Historic Pelham Web Site.
Home Page of the Historic Pelham Blog.
Order a Copy of "Thomas Pell and the Legend of the Pell Treaty Oak."