Overview. The first Kerleys to arrive in America landed in Massachusetts in the late 1630's. They were your classic Puritans. These Kerleys were prominent citizens in colonial Massachusetts. They helped to establish the towns of Sudbury, Lancaster and Marlborough, and they fought against (and suffered deadly losses from) the Indians. Although descendants from some of the females of this family survive to this date, the male line apparently lasted only three generations. Accordingly, none of the persons having the name "Kerley" today are descended from this particular group.
Although many "Kerley family histories" published on the Internet purport to tie this family to Kerley families of the South, I have found no evidence whatsoever to verify that conclusion. Families at this time generally did not move from Massaschusetts to Virginia or the Carolinas. That was not a common migration pattern. In addition, the Puritans of New England had a completely different religion than the other Protestants who settled in the South. Accordingly, until actual evidence can be produced, I am not willing to give credence to these unverified theories.
William. The head of this family was William Kerley (1583 - 1670) (William’s birth date can be established by examining a record from Cambridge MA dated June 1659 in which it is stated that William Kerley was about 76 years old at that time). He was among the first settlers of Sudbury, Massachusetts, arriving there about 1638 or 1639. See, Hudson, Alfred S., The History of Sudbury, Massachusetts 1838 -1889 (1889) at 26. William participated in the first divisions of land for that town sometime before 1640, and also in subsequent divisions that occurred on November 18, 1640 and January 4, 1655. Id. at 112, 115 and 181. (Examine religious affiliation of these settlers; what religion were they?)
Many of the first settlers of Sudbury arrived on a ship called the Confidence in 1638. Id. at 27. When the passenger list of the Confidence is matched against the list of the first persons to get land in Sudbury we see that there were at least __ persons on both lists. After landing in late 1638, these immigrants moved quickly to Sudbury and started organizing the town in early 1639. These folks did not waste any time in commencing their new life in America.
Although there was a man named William Kerley on the Confidence, we do not know who that William was. It could have been either the William we are currently discussing (William Sr.) or his son. I tend to think that the William on the Confidence was the son - not the father - because the passenger list for the Confidence was very thorough, listing both children and adults. Since it is very likely that William, Sr. was married and had at least one young child (i.e. Henry) before he immigrated, the William on the Confidence (listed with no children) was probably William, Jr. I believe that the father preceded the son by a year or two, and William Jr. probably joined up with the other immigrants from his home town when the Confidence arrived in late 1638.
If William, Sr. did not arrive on the Confidence, then when did he arrive? Unfortunately there are no records to enable us to determine this. One author speculates that he arrived in Hingham, Massachusetts, in 1637 and that he probably brought his son, Henry, with him. See Savage, Genealogical Dictionary of the First Settlers of New England, Showing 3 Generations of Those Who Came Before May, 1692 on the Basis of the Farmer's Register, p. 14. This speculation is supported somewhat by the records in Hingham, but since they refer to a William Carlslye, we cannot be certain that this was William, Sr. See Lincoln, History of Hingham, 1:202. (Reference to a William Carlslye). Like so much else in the Kerley family history this is a matter that will probably never be resolved with any certainty.
During the 1640's and early 1650's William apparently devoted his energies to helping his new town get established. Being situated on the frontier (approximately 33 miles west of Boston and 15 miles north of Worcester), Sudbury was a difficult place in which to live. See generally, Willard, Joseph: "History of Lancaster", II Worcester Magazine and Historical Journal (Sept. 1826, No. 5) pp. 257 - 344. Apparently, the early settlers were successful in making Sudbury an attractive place to live, because by the late 1640's the town fathers were looking for expansion room. William was, in fact, one of three persons chosen in 16__ by the town to lay out a road between Sudbury and Lancaster. See Hudson, The History of Sudbury at 185.
William was not, however, content to stay in Sudbury for long. In an action which was to be repeated by countless Kerleys in the next several hundred years, he decided to move. (Note that this was his second major move in less than 15 years; the first being his decision to move from England to America). He was one of the first inhabitants of Sudbury to move out of town and begin the process of establishing another community. This new town, located approximately 15 miles northwest of Sudbury, was called Lancaster.
On May 18, 1653, William, along with 8 other original settlers of Lancaster, signed a petition to the Massachusetts General Court requesting that their community be incorporated. See Marvin, Abijah P., History of the Town of Lancaster, Massachusetts (1879) p. 42. The petition was granted the same month, and in its answer the General Court named William Kerley as one of the "Prudential Managers" of the newly established town of Lancaster. https://books.google.com/books?id=Y_07AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA276&lpg=PA276&dq=%22may+18,+1653%22+lancaster+petition&source=bl&ots=n196-mDHOx&sig=ACfU3U3XAxmYUyIQBCpy1S2YXbekpDFZ0Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjsneybtsznAhVAmnIEHRP6DNgQ6AEwAXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22may%2018%2C%201653%22%20lancaster%20petition&f=false
The General Court established certain conditions that had to be satisfied before the town could be officially incorporated. These conditions were satisfied within one year as the town grew from 9 to 20 families and, accordingly, the town again petitioned the General Court in 1654. This petition was sent by several of the families then living in the town. This petition was signed by, among others, William Kerley, William Kerley, Jr. and Henry Kerley. Note that William Jr.'s signing this petition is further evidence that he arrived separately from his father. Had William Sr. been the William on the Confidence, then William Jr. would likely have to have been born after William Sr.'s arrival in America, that is, some time after 1638. This would have made William Jr. only about 16 in 1654; too young to sign this petition.
In September, 1657, William Sr. was appointed to be one of the five selectmen for Lancaster. The selectmen started meeting in January, 1658, and typically rotated their monthly meetings among the houses of the five selectmen. The second meeting of the selectmen was held in William Sr.'s house in February, 1658.
All members of this community agreed to live pursuant to a covenant which established the terms, conditions and mutual obligation of the citizens of the community. William Sr. was one of the original subscribers to this covenant (signed in 1652). William Jr. and Henry signed shortly thereafter on January 15, 1653.
The Kerleys were the wealthiest family in the community. According to a 1654 valuation of the estates of the inhabitants of Lancaster, William Sr.'s estate was valued at 270 pounds, William Jr.'s at 186 pounds and Henry's at 78 pounds, 4 shillings. See Marvin at 53.
William appears to have been a rather cantankerous fellow. Although meetings of selectmen typically rotated among the houses of the five selectmen, by late 1658 and early 1659, William Sr. had stopped attending meetings of the selectmen and when it was his turn to host the meeting, the other members met at the meeting-house near William's home. See Marvin at 80-83. The event which appears to have precipitated William's falling out with his fellow selectmen was the controversy surrounding the discharge and then rehiring of a minister in May, 1658.
At a meeting on May 14, 1658, the selectmen, hearing rumors that their minister, Master Rowlandson, was preparing to leave them, called on Mr. Rowlandson and discussed his situation. When he confirmed that he was looking at other possible employment, they, in effect, fired him.
Eleven days later, when a messenger from a nearby town (Bellerica) arrived to fetch Mr. Rowlandson, a town meeting was held. At this meeting, the town unanimously agreed to invite Mr. Rowlandson to stay and settle among them as their minister and to pay him 50 pounds per year as salary. However, when the town was asked to give Mr. Rowlandson ownership to the dwelling-house in which was living and some of the surrounding land, everyone except William Sr. voted in the affirmative. Apparently, William Sr. was later joined in the opposition to this gift by his son, Henry, and by A Mr. White, Henry's father-in-law. Since the parcel and home were located near Henry's property, this might have explained their opposition. In the end, however, the motion passed and Mr. Rowlandson got his house and land. William's relationship with the town was never the same thereafter. Id at 91-92.
In fact, he may have even considered moving out of Lancaster. In 1662, he was granted 10 acres of land in Marlborough, Mass., a newly-established town approximately 20 miles southeast of Lancaster. See Colonial Records of Marlborough, Mass. 62 NEHGR 337. (William's son, William Jr., had moved there several years earlier.)
A few years later, on March 2, 1664, William Sr. was appointed a selectman of Marlborough. See Colonial Records of Marlborough, Mass. 63 NEHGR 118. Although it is unlikely that the town would have appointed William as a selectmen if he was not living there, it appears that he did not stay there long. An accounting of landowners on April 6, 1665, reports that William Sr.'s 10 acres (and the lands owned by his son, Henry) were then in the possession of a Abraham Williams. Id at 28. This shows that William and Henry either never came and improved their lots and thus surrendered and lost them, or they sold their lots to Mr. Williams.
William appears to have returned to Lancaster by 1664 since his third marriage was recorded there on May 16, 1664, and his death was recorded there July 14, 1670. Id at 10-13. His will was dated July 26, 1669, and the inventory of his estate was dated July 19, 1670. See The History of Middlesex County at 1709. In these documents he refers to his sons, William and Henry, and indicates that William was his eldest son.
William appears to have had at least three wives. Ann, his first wife, died in Lancaster on March 12, 1658. See Nourse, Henry S., The Birth, Marriage and Death Register, Church Records and epitaphs of Lancaster, Massachusetts, 1643 - 1850 (1890), at 12. He then remarried. On May 31, 1659, he married Brichett Rowlandson. She, however, lived only a few years and died on June 14, 1662. Two years later, on May 16, 1664, he then married Rebeccah Joselin.
William Sr. had at least three children: Mary, William, Jr., b. abt 1621; d. 1684 and Henry, b abt 1632; d. 1713.
Mary2 (William1). Little is known of Mary other than the fact that she married Richard Smith in October, 1647, in Sudbury. IGI. Although there are no records conclusively proving that she was William's daughter, given the lack of any other Kerleys in Sudbury at this time, and the fact that she was probably born around 1626, (far too early to be a child of Henry or William, Jr.) and William lived in Sudbury, then she most likely was William Sr.'s daughter. (Since Edmund, the only other known Kerley to come to Massachusetts during this time, was born around 1616, Mary couldn't have been his daughter since he was at most 10 or 11 when she was born.) She is known to have had only one daughter: Hannah Smith, b. 1651; d. 1654.
William Jr.2 (William1 ). William Jr. is one of those rare Kerleys whose departure point and ship are known with relative certainty. He is listed, along with a person named Edmund Kerley, as a passenger on the ship, Confidence, that left Southampton, England, on April 24, 1638. See Coldham, The Complete Book of Emigrants, 1607 - 1776, p. __. He would have been 17 years old when he left England. The passenger list describes him as a husbandman. As discussed earlier, I assume that this passenger on the Confidence was William, Jr.
Both Edmund and William are listed as being from Ashmore, County Dorset. Ashmore is "5 miles south-east of Shaftsbury and on the Wiltshire border. See English Origins of New England Families, Ist Series, Vol. III p. 682. This gives us a good idea of where William Sr.'s family was from. It is uncertain what happened to Edmund. There is no record of him at all in America. I assume that he either did not survive the crossing or died shortly after his arrival in New England.
Our first official record of him is in the Sudbury Archives which tell us that on April 1, 1643 11 acres of land were granted to “William Kerley the younger.” He also appears frequently in the Sudbury records of 1640’s (e.g. land transactions and town meetings). See e.g., Sudbury town meeting (Feb. 9, 1647): “William Kerley junior is acknowledged to be a free townsman by virtue of the first grant in his commonage to the town.” He married a woman named Hannah King in Sudbury on October 6, 1646.
In the early 1650’s he appears to have moved with his father and brother to Lancaster. He signed several of the incorporation documents for that town in 1653 and 1654. He also was one of the signers of a deed and grant (together with his father) on Sept. 20, 1653. See Ford, Andrew E., History of Clinton, Massachusetts 1653 - 1865 (18__) at p. __. William Jr. appears not to have been content to live in Lancaster because in 1657 he struck out on his own and became one of the founders of the town of Marlborough, Mass.
Marlborough was an offshoot of the town of Sudbury. The original petition to found Marlborough was sent to the General Court in May, 1656, and William was not one of the signers. See Colonial Records of Marlborough, Mass. 62 NEHGR at 220. However, William Jr. appears on the scene not too much later. In July, 1657 he was one of the signers of an indenture for some other settlers of Marlborough. Id at 223. In addition, his name was added to the original grantee list in September 1657. See Hudson, Charles, History of the Town of Marlborough at 32. For the next 10 years or so William Jr. took an active role in the establishment and development of this new town.
He and his brother Henry signed an order in September 20, 1660, assessing taxes on all of the lot owners in town to help defray the costs that the town had been incurring for the minister, the minister's estate, and other town debts. Id at 36. He and Henry also participated regularly in all divisions of land authorized by the town. For example, on November 26, 1660, he was assigned 30 acres for his house lot and Henry was assigned 19 1/2 acres. Id at 37; see also Worcester Magazine and Historical Journal (1826) at pp. 134, 186. A few days later, the town divided up the more valuable meadows in town and William got 8 acres and Henry got 5 acres. 62 NEHGR at 228-9.
On April 25, 1661, he and Henry were among the 18 settlers of Marlborough who signed an Indenture guaranteeing payment to certain men for the construction of a house for the minister. 62 NEHGR at 336-7. In early 1662, he and Henry were chosen to be part of a committee to lay out all of the highways in the town. Id at 341. Later that year, in November, he and Henry also were among the town settlers who signed an order declaring that persons who had claimed lots in the town and were not yet residents could have their lots seized if they did not pay the taxes levied by the town on all lot owners. Id at 342.
In January, 1663, William - but not Henry - signed another town order dividing up the Cedar Swamp among all of the proprietors of the town. Id at 43. In addition, William was appointed with two other men, to take a survey of the swamp and report back to the town. This was the first mention of William's skills at surveying. In subsequent years, he was repeatedly elected one of the two surveyors of highways for the town. See 63 NEHGR at 59, 65, 118. He was alsooccasionally selected to lay out new roads. (Id at 63. See also Hudson, History of the Town of Marlborough (1862) at 408 wherein William's involvement with surveying a tract of land between Concord, Lancaster and Groton in 1667 is described). He once was selected to assist in the clearing of felled trees from public lands. Id at 64.
In 1664, he along with 17 other town residents signed a petition to the Mass. General Court asking the Court to appoint a committee to hear the differences that had arisen among the townsfolk. Hudson at 46. Although this request was opposed by an almost equal number of residents, the committee was appointed.
Since official Marlborough records do not exist for the years between 1665 and 1739, (Hudson at vii), our knowledge of William's activities becomes somewhat more scarce after 1665. We do know, however, that William served as a selectman from Marlborough in 1671 (Hudson at 279) and was actively involved in the defense of Marlboro during King Philip's War. On October 1, 1675, the citizens of Marlborough met and arranged their defenses in case of Indian attack. William was at this meeting and the citizens agreed to establish 8 garrisons. One of these garrisons was at William's house. Two soldiers were to be stationed there and in the event of attack, nine citizens were to seek shelter at William's house. (Hudson at 68; See also Bodge, Soldiers of King Philip's War at 210-11. William was the "clarke" who recorded the minutes of the town's actions). During these attacks William appears to have received the rank of ensign because he is referred to as such in his death records.
William died on January 11, 1683. (Nourse at __). His will, dated January 9, 1683 and proved 1684, mentions wife Anna, (daughter of Thomas King), brother Henry, brother-in-law Nathaniel Joslin, Sr., father-in-law (then dead) Thomas King, William Divall, Ester Hubbard "My kinswoman now of Hadley." He gave his brother, Henry, his sword, belts, and other arms, and his military books. (Id at 408). His wife Anna was named executor and brother-in-law Peter King was named overseer.
William's will raises two interesting questions. First, who was William Divall? William Sr.'s will had left a bequest to a John Devall. Obviously, there was some close relationship between the Kerley and Divall families. Particularly since Divalls were mentioned in two different Kerley wills 15 years apart.
Second, what is noticeably absent from William's will is any mention of children. Therein lies one of the unresolved issues regarding this family. Did William have any children, and if so, what happened to them?
The Vital Records of Sudbury indicate that three girls were born to a William Kerley between 1667 and 1670: Mary (born May 4, 1667), Sarah (born January 23, 1668) and Hannah (born January 8, 1670). (?? NEHGR at 82). The problem with these births is that they list William's wife as being named Jane. We know from his will, and also from an earlier marriage record,(?? NEHGR at 227). The Vital Records of Sudbury show a William Kerley marrying a Hannah King on October 6, 1646 that his wife was named Hannah (or Anna) King. Since she was mentioned in William's will, it can be assumed that she was still living in 1683. (The widow Ann Kerley died on February 18, 1697-8).
It is likely that these three girls were not children of our William. Rather, they were offspring of another family living in Massachusetts at that time named Carley. Given the total lack of any references in the records of that time to any other Kerley children, it appears that William had no offspring. It is highly unlikely that any current day members of the Kerley family are descended from this William.
Henry2 (William1). Henry was a very interesting and prominent military figure in early Massachusetts. Based on information contained in a deposition he signed in 1688, in which he gives his age as 57, we can determine that Henry was born around 1632. (See The Revolution in New England Justified (1691) pp. 35-36). Since this was prior to the earliest known presence of any Kerley in Massachusetts, we can also conclude that Henry was born in England and probably brought to America by his father.
Henry appears to have inherited his father's stubbornness and temper. The Lancaster town history records that Henry had a fight with his future wife, Elizabeth White, while they were courting. Henry got so mad that he pulled up the post where his wedding intentions were posted and tossed it into the river. True love prevailed, however, and in the end Henry and Elizabeth were married. (See History of Lancaster (Woc. Mag. and Hist) at 282; Marvin at 99). Given this story's survival in the lore of the town for hundreds of years we can only assume that Henry made quite a scene.
Henry married Elizabeth White on November 2, 1654 in Sudbury. He subsequently had several children. (See Nourse at pp. 2, 10, 11, 13, and 14).
1. Henry, Jr., b. January 11, 1657
2. William, b. January 22, 1658
3. Elizabeth b.? (Although Elizabeth does not appear, like all of her other siblings, in the Vital Records of Lancaster, she was clearly Henry's daughter. She is listed in his will, and the will of her father-in-law also mentions Henry Kerley as his brother-in-law.
4. Hannah, b. July 8, 1663.
5. Mary, b. October 14, 1666
6. Joseph, b. March 28, 1669
7. Martha, b. June 10, 1672
The Indian Massacre. One of the more famous and tragic episodes in the history of the Kerley family occurred during what is now known as King Philip's War. King Philip was an Indian chief who, in the late 1670's was able to organize many of the New England tribes in an attempt to resist the steady progression of the English settlers inland into interior Massachusetts. King Philip correctly foresaw that unless the advance of the English was restrained, the survival of the Indians could not be assured.
The war started in June 1675 when the Indians attacked Swansey, near Mount Hope, the home of King Philip. King Philip carried out a campaign of terror throughout the settlements in all of central and western Massachusetts. He attacked Hadley, Deerfield, Northfield and Springfield. In each of these attacks King Philip sought the complete and utter destruction of the settlers. This was a war for survival, and King Philip was determined to exterminate the English. Consequently, he showed no mercy on those he attacked. He almost always tried to destroy their homes by burning them.
In the summer of 1675, through the efforts of a spy, the settlers in Lancaster were able to learn that the Indians intended to attack several frontier settlements (including Lancaster, Groton, Marlborough, Sudbury and Medfield) in the next few weeks. The Indians did, in fact, attack Lancaster in August, 1675, and killed 8 settlers. The rest of the settlers were concerned about the possibility of future attacks and established several garrisons in different neighborhoods throughout the town. In addition, the General Court (i.e. the colonial government) sent several soldiers to guard the town.
The Indians continued sporadic attacks through the fall and early winter. On February 9, 1676, in the dead of winter, the Indians attacked Lancaster. Approximately 1,500 Indians under King Philip's leadership stormed the town. They attacked at least 5 different parts of the town, but concentrated their efforts on the Rowlandson house. This house was the central fortified location to which approximately 42 persons fled. Included in this group was Henry Kerley's wife, Elizabeth, and his children. In addition, Elizabeth's sister, Mrs. Rowlandson and her children were in the house.
Mrs. Rowlandson was a survivor and years later published a famous book describing her experiences. It is from this book that we get most of our information about the attack. The Indians attacked for over two hours while the settlers put up a valiant defense. Ultimately, however, the Indians started the house on fire and the settlers were forced to leave the house. At that point the Indians either killed or captured all of the persons in the house. (See generally, Worcester Magazine and Historical Journal (1826), Vol 1. pp. 281 -284).
According to Mrs. Rowlandson, her sister, (Mrs. Kerley), witnessed the death of her son, William, and was told by her son, Henry, that he (Henry) was wounded. The two sisters also saw the Indians haul mothers away from their children and saw many the settlers become wounded. At one point, Mrs. Kerley cried out "Lord, let me die with them". Whereupon she was almost simultaneously struck with a bullet and was killed. Before leaving with their captives the Indians burned most of the buildings in the town.
Of all of the persons in the house, there was only one person who escaped. 12 were killed; many were shot; several were hit in the head with hatchets; others were stabbed with spears. All of the men in the house, save one, were killed. The surviving women and children were carried away by the Indians for future ransom. (See Bodge at 352-53).
Henry was actively involved in the military affairs of the town of Lancaster. (See Bodge, Soldiers of King Philip's War at 474). Henry was assigned the rank of Lieutenant in the Middlesex regiment. His military involvement was probably the only reason why he survived this attack. Henry, along with the Rev. Mr. Rowlandson, had gone to Boston to see about having Lancaster better fortified when the Indians attacked. At that time, Henry was already a captain and was the town's chief military officer. Since all of the male defenders of the garrison failed to survive the attack, it is highly unlikely that Henry would have survived the attack if he had been there instead of in Boston when the attack came.
Henry returned to the town shortly after the massacre. He then learned that his three sons, Henry, William and Joseph, had been killed during the massacre and all of his daughters were taken into captivity. (Nourse at 16). He, at that time, did not know whether his wife had been killed or whether she had been taken captive. Henry, like the other survivors, then started assisting the survivors in burying the dead.
One of the most awful horrors in the history of the Kerley family then occurred. Given the confusion that existed in the town after the massacre, and the fact that families were spread in different garrisons, there was a lot of uncertainty as to who had been actually carried off by the Indians. Henry thus had some hope that his wife and children were captives of the Indians and had not been massacred. So, in this vein, he assisted the survivors and personally buried a woman who had been burned so badly that nobody recognized her.
Later, when the captives were ransomed, Henry learned from one of the captives that the burned woman he had helped bury had been his wife. One can only imagine Henry's shock and horror. (At this time William, Jr. was living in Marlborough, and thus was not involved in this attack. William, Sr. had died several years earlier).
Although the records are somewhat conflicting, it appears that all three of Henry's sons were killed in the attack. William and Joseph are contained on most lists of victims. Henry Jr. is not. Given his disappearance from the town records after that date, and the description of his wounding in Mrs. Rowlandson's account of the attack, and the fact that few males survived the attack, it is likely that Henry died either in the attack or during captivity shortly thereafter. (See Safford, The Story of Colonial Lancaster (1937) at 36-7).
We do know from Henry Sr.'s will which was probated decades later that at least two of his daughters (Mary and Elizabeth) survived the attack. Based on the accounts of the raid, it would appear either that these two girls were not with the rest of the family when the attack came (unlikely) or were with the family, were captured by the Indians and subsequently, like Mrs. Rowlandson, ransomed. These girls must have had quite some tales to relate to their descendants.
Approximately one year after the massacre, Henry remarried. He married Elizabeth Howe in Charleston on April 18, 1677. He had two daughters from this marriage: Hannah (born March 20, 1677-8) and Mercy (Born May 2, 1681). Mercy died at the age of 46 and is buried in the Spring Hill Burying Ground in Marlborough. She is one of the few Kerleys of this era whose grave has been clearly identified. (See Marlborough, Mass. Burial Ground Inscriptions (1908) at 135. "No. 414. Here Lies Buried/ Body of/ Mrs. Marcy Rice/ wife of Mr./Joseph Rice who/ dec. Oct. 16th/A.D. 1727/ age 46 years/ 5 m and 14 d". Footstone reads: Mrs. Marcy/Rice).
Henry remained active in town and military affairs after the massacre. He shows up as a captain again in a listing of the various garrisons of the Western District of Middlesex County in 1692. (See 43 NEHGR at 372). In April, 1702, he voted in another dispute regarding the retention of a minister. See Hudson at 102. (Although this vote is described as being given by William Kerley, it is unlikely that any William was alive at that time. It more likely was Henry). In 1706, he sold 67 acres of his land (some of which he had obtained from his father) in Lancaster to John Barnes, Sr. (An actual copy os this deed can be found at http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~historyofmarlborough/jbarnesdeed1705.htm This document is particularly interesting since it contains a copy of Henry’s signature). In 1711, just a few years before his death, Henry (again listed a Captain) was given command of a garrison in Marlborough during Queen Anne's War. (See Worcester Magazine and Historical Journal (1826), vol.2, p.154. This reference becomes more important later on because among the persons listed in other garrisons were "B.__ Curly (Kerley), Sr. and James Curly). Finally, he served as a representative to the General Court from Marlborough in the years 1689, 1693 and 1703. (Hudson at 283).
As he aged, Henry’s thoughts became concerned with death and on May 17, 1708, he prepared his will. (A copy of Henry’s will can be found at http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~historyofmarlborough/henrykerleywill.html) In this will, Henry appointed his wife Elizabeth to be executrix. In addition to the reference to his “loving wife” Elizabeth, however, Henry also mentions “my loving wife, Liberty”. I doubt that Henry had two wives, but this reference is quite confusing. In addition to making requests to both of his “wives, Elizabeth and Liberty, Henry made bequests to his daughter Elizabeth (wife of Daniel How), Mary (wife of Jonathan Johnson), Hannah (wife of Zerubbabel Eager) and Mercy (wife of Joseph Rice). The specific bequests to the daughters were Elizabeth, Mary and Hannah (five pounds each), and Mercy (20 pounds) “because she hath not had a portion as yet”.
Apparently, on July 5, 1713, Henry deeded most of his estate to Mercy. Since his wife, Elizabeth, had died 3 years earlier, Henry apparently decided to revise the disposition of his estate without formally amending his will. He gave everything to Mercy. When Henry died on December 18, 1713, this created animosity between Mercy and her sisters. Under the terms of the original 1708 will if (as was the case) Henry’s wife died before he did, the all of Henry’s estate would be split equally among the four sisters. By deeding everything to Mercy just before his death, Henry deprived the sisters of a bigger share of his estate. Henry’s actions caused quite a controversy in the family.
Shortly after Henry’s death the sisters starting arguing about the disposition of the estate. Sister Mary Johnson filed paperwork with the court complaining that “our sister Mercy Carley received of our Father Carley's estate at her marriage nearabout 10 pounds in money, too cows, a feather bed and furniture and two chests." Apparently Mary felt that Mercy had already received more than her just share of Henry’s property. (Note that even in these documents the spelling of Kerley is incorrect.)
This filing was then followed by a separate filing by Joseph Rice, husband of Mercy. He launched a pre-emptive strike by telling the court that Henry had deeded all of his estate to Mercy earlier that year, that the deed had been witnessed by three witnesses and that he expected Mercy’s sisters to challenge the deed based on the provisions in Henry’s 1708 will. He asked the court to delay probate of the will until he could produce evidence of the Gift of Deed.
The inventory of Henry’s estate, dated January 23, 1713, shows that Henry’s estate was valued at 87 pounds, 4 shillings, 11 pence. So basically the sisters would have received about 22 pounds instead of the 5 pounds. That was the sum of their argument.
On the 23rd of January, 1713, three of Henry’s neighbors filed a document with the Probate court opposing the validity of the deed. They stated in their petition that for more than a year prior to his death, Henry’s “reason, understanding and sound judgment was so much impaired that he was not in a capacity to dispose of his Estate”. They stated that they based this impression on numerous visits and encounters that they had had with Henry, and that they firmly believed that Henry “for many months before he died uncapable of rational discourse or taking any care of” his affairs.
There is no record indicating what the court did with this case. Did it side with Mercy and give her the estate? Or did it give credence to the testimony of the neighbors and determine that Mercy had taken advantage of her father? This incident is an interesting insight into early American life. The absence of any mention of any sons in Henry’s will further supports the theory that all of Henry’s sons were killed during the Indian raids. I believe it to be highly unlikely that if Henry would have completely omitted any mention of his sons in his will if sons had been still living in 1713.
Elizabeth, his second wife, died on April 26, 1710.
SUMMARY. This initial group of Kerleys apparently produced no males that survived beyond the early 1700's. Although children from some of the Kerley women survive as the 18th century begins, we can conclusively find no males with the Kerley name after Henry dies in 1713.
Several issues remain unresolved for this family and I encourage future researchers to explore them:
- On which ship did William Sr. and Henry arrive?
- What happened to Edmund?