sr, •y^ r^ ^^ r^-^^^^-^- ^ J *yfff^^\ r^ ,^ .'4 y .^"S. ^>^^ /^ -^m^^ /"^ ■'^} /\ -^ ^^ V^ ^^^ 4 o ^/ ;^^v %/ ;/-^^-^, X/ ^^ft* ' "°o ^"^^ 0^ o " » * ''b j> 4 O 0' <:> »" -^^^ r, - V V V ** ** wpy >'"X •MK-'>^'"'^ "oV A- ^iW^*' .^ .0 '•!^:';,c/ '% '^_ ,Ho^ o ■"^- * A o , ^x, a"^ ^'iement with them of any otJier Bounds than xvhat zvas formerly.''' P. 138. — Town Meeting, March nth, 171S-19. — ''They have also agreed to renew the Line between Newark and Ack- quackanong, the tirst Monday in April next." P. 13S.— Town Meeting, April 6th, 1719. — "The Line was then Renewed, and there was present from Newark" (9 names) " from Acquackanong " (3 names) . References to the boundary dispute are also found in the New Jersey Colonial Documents, N. J. Archives, Vol. XIII. p. ^^i^ —On the '• I 7th of March, 170S. At a Council held at Perth Amboy." " The Petition of the Inhabitants liveing above the towneship of Newarke Setting forth as p'" the Peti- sion that they have Sufred Severall hardshipps from the said I lO THE NUTLEY AREA. towneship of Newarke from which they desired Releife." The Council then ordered that the " Inhabitants of the Towneship of Newarke have a Coppy of this Petition and that they Attend this board with their objections against it if they have any on Tuesday Next." P. 316.—" 23d March 170S. At a Councill held at Perth Amboy." The Acquackanunck and Newark men were pres- ent and were heard. The Council ordered that the matter be referred to a later dav and that " they be heard by Councill on booth sides." P. 324. — "30th March 1709. At a Councill held at Perth Amboy." - - - " The Petissioners of Acquiconunck " and the "•people of Newarke" appeared by their counsel and were fully heard. Then it was ordered " that the Petis- sioners doe Cause an exact survey of the boundaries of the lar.d that they desire to have joyned to Acquicanunck and seperated from Newarke." Surveyors for both sides were ap- pointed to make this survey and to repoit to the Board. "The Van Houten Manuscripts" were a barrelful of papers discovered in the garret of an old New Jersey mansion. They were deciphered, copied and published by Mr. William Nelson, who thus speaks of the papers relating to the Bound- ary Dispute : " The 'Dispute as to the Boundary Line between Acquack- anonk and Newark, 1792-95 (pp. 63-65) ' ''''^<-' been a stand- ing grievance between the people concerned for fully three- quarters of a century before this time." Among the Van Houten manuscripts are records of a num- ber of surveys (1792-1795), two of which are of lands on this part of Third River. Also a receipt which reads : " Received New Ark Septr. 15th, 1792 of Mr. Paul Pow- lisson the Sum of Ten Shillings for Going to Elizabeth Town with him and taking a Coppy of a Map for him of the Division Line betwixt New Ark and Acquackenonck by me. Joseph Thornton." On P. 64 is another receipt : " Reed of Henry Garritse Jun & Paul Powlison in Behalf of the Patentees of Acquackonunck Township the sum of thirty Shillings as a Retainer in an THE NUTLEY AREA. it Action which it is supposed will be brought by them against the Possessors of disputed Lands lying on the north side of the Liite between New Ark & Acquackanonk. New Ark, Jany 14th 1793 I, Ludlow Ogden for David A. Ogden." Also on P. 64 is a copy of a subpoena that was written on parchment, summoning witnesses in a suit for "Trespass and Ejectment" between Abraham Van Riper and others and Francis Van Winkle and others, before the Supreme Court to be held at " New Ark," Oct. 6, 1795. Through the courtesy of Mr. Nelson, as State Commis- sioner of Records, a search was made of the Supreme Court Minutes and papers on file from 1792 to 1797. Copies were furnished of the declarations, certificates and court orders re- ferring to these suits. In the case of the receipt for a retaining fee, the suit "supposed" was evidently brought. In the records of the New Jersey Supreme Court, April Term, 1792, there is found a " Declaration in Ejectment for Lands in Essex County," by Francis Van Winkle, Jacob Van Wagoner and Rachel his wife, Cornelius Enoch Vreelandt and Margaret his wife, Henry Garrison, Jun., John Garrison and Abigail Gar- rison against Abraham Van Ryper, or John Abraham Van Ruyper. The suit to which the subpoena of three years later belongs, seems to be the same suit renewed or reversed. In the Supreme Court Minutes, 1795, is an order for Jurors to " view the premises" in dispute between Francis Van Winkle and others and Abraham Van Ryper and others on September 22nd. Then follows the certificate of the sherift", Benj. Wil- liamson, that he made them " to have view," and the names of the jurors. Another fragment, not dated individually, but in "memoranda 1796-1797" refers to a postponement of the same suit, " In Tresspass and Ejectment for Lands in Essex County," between "John Ab'™ Van Riper and others, and Francis Van Winkle and others," After this, nothing more can be found. The description of 13 THE NUTI-EY AREA. the location of the "premises" is very vague. It would be impossible to identify it, except by the names, and hardly then with any certainty. These suits are believed on good author- ity, however, to belong to the boundary dispute of this area. With this glance over old maps and old papers there seems to be no doubt that the Nutley Area was well identified in the minds of the old surveyors. They noted well the rapid mill stream and the wooded slopes and the easy River Road follow- ing the bank of the Passaic, then most charming of rivers. Washington's route down the River Road to Newark is shown in a number of maps. It was an accepted fact and an important one as a link in the chain of the Retreat. The boundary dispute for more than a century has been forgotten, its rancors dead, its suits long dropped or settled. It rises to the surface only by chance or diligent search, atid then only to fldd to the antiquarian interest of the Nutley Area, HK2^7 -78 ^ ■^ •/ ,/\ \^^l^ ■0.* v