PIATT-L Archives

Archiver > PIATT > 2006-02 > 1139457459


From:
Subject: Re: [PIATT] New Connecticut Peatt family
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 03:57:39 +0000


JAMES PEET (Benjamin, Benjamin, John), b 27 March 1691; m 14 Nov 1716 SARAH OSBORN, dau of John and Hannah (Canfield) Osborn (she b 1698); Congregational Church records of Stratford (CT) show that Sarah, wife of James confessed to fornication, 1717 - p 270); early settler of Trumbull CT, c 1731 (Trumbull: Church and Town, 3rd ed., 1971 by E Merrill Beach, p 17)

This James Peet was a fourth generation Peet in Connecticut as recorded in _John Peet, 1597-1684, of Stratford, Connecticut and his Descendants_, by Terry Charles Peet, Gateway Press, 1986. These New England Peets were Peets but liked to vary the spelling of their name in such ways as Peate, Peat, Peyte, Pyttes, Peete, and (no doubt) more.

They liked to use the same names over and over and were fond of Benjamin, James, John, William, Ephraim, but seemed not to care to use the name Jacob, thank goodness.

The immigrant, John Peet, was born in Duffield Parrish, Derbyshire, England, 1 Sep 1684. His eldest son, immaginatively named John Peet, also married a different Sarah Osborn, daughter of Richard Osborn.

The couple of the original question--James Peet and Sarah Osborn--had ten children with the eldest being born in 1717/1718, the time of Sarah's confessed indiscretion. It doesn't matter, however, as the child was a girl!

I acquired Mr Peet's book in self defense back when I was researching Piatt on Ohio census microfilm, reading roll after roll. With the northeast portion of Ohio having been a part of the Connecticut Western Reserve, there were Peets and Peats listed in those counties. I learned that nearly all of the suspected Piatts in any area connected to New England were really Peets. But every one must be checked to be sure.

--
Laverne Ingram Piatt
Ontario, OH



This thread: