Heathcote for the purchase lands." This was carried out by a deed from Robert Bloomer, John Budd, Samuel Purdy, John Horton, Nathan Kniffen, John Disbrow, Samuel Brown, Roger Park, Joseph Galpin, Abraham Brundige, and nineteen other inhabitants of Rye and White plains, to Mrs. Ann de Lancey and Mrs. Martha Johnston dated September 5th 1739 for all the lands referred to in the above agreement.' In connection with these matters it must be borne in mind that when the first claim of the Rye people was defeated by the verdict against them in favor of Mrs. Richbell of Decembers, 1696, they were already greatly angered by the grant of the Patent to John Harrison and his associates for what has ever since been known as "Harrison's Purcha-=e" by the Governor of New York, on the 25th of June 1696, about six monAs

' Baird's History of Rye, p. 156. The same erroneous statement was copied from Baird into the second edition of Bolton's Westchester, vol. ii. p. 568.

> So styled in Baird, Hist. Eye, p. 156.

3 From an ancient copy of the deed in the writer's possession.

before the verdict was rendered. They claimed that territory under an Indian deed to Peter Disbrow and three others of 2d June 1662, for " a certain tract of land above Westchester Path to the marked trees bounded with the above said Blind Brook," (this is the whole description) and as being in Connecticut of which they insisted Rye was a part, but they never would take out a patent for it. Hence when the Quaker Harrison, and his four or five associates, applied to the New York government for a grant of it as "unappropriated and vacant land" it was, after due deliberation, granted them by Patent. In order to quiet the border disputes of that day they had previously tried to get the people of Rye to take out a patent for this land, but they always refused to do so.