itation, by those who controlled the land, but who, to all appearances never occupied it, nor apparently paid any taxes thereon, even if a claim could be substantiated that the Jans Bogardus lands were of right a part of the Queen's Farm, because apparently they have never occupied the Queen's Farm, and considering that it does not appear that the Trinity Church Corporation, parent body, ever actually occupied any of the land of the Queen Anne grant, nor does it appear that the Jans Bogardus lands were rightfully a part thereof, therefore, it cannot be understood how the claim of adverse possession to the Bogardus lands in rightfully substantiated.

It was claimed by Jonas Humbert in his trial against the Trinity Church Corporation, when he sued for a definition of the boundary lines, that they knew of such. This was denied, however, there is an old map in the Hall of Records, New York City, showing an agreed boundary line between Rutger's farm and the old King's Farm, and the boundary line of the Jans Bogardus lands can be distinguished also from the boundaries of the old King's Farm.

Rutgers drained the swamp to the east of the Jans Bogardus lands, and this reclaimed land was later known as "Rutger's Farm."

Rutger's daughter married Lispenard, and Rutger's Farm was later known as "Lispenard's Meadows." Anthony Lispenard was in his time a Trinity

Church vestryman, and he was one of the nine persons in whom the Legislature of 1779 vested the real and personal estate of the Trinity Church Corporation, after the Legislature had vacated the places of church wardens and vestrymen.

No record has been found by the writer, anywhere, of any mention of the Jans Bogardus lands as being a part of either the Duke's Farm, the King's Farm or the Queen's Farm, and no record has been found of the legal confiscation of the Jans Bogardus lands, by Governor Andros, and his transfer of it to the estate of the Duke of York, in 1674, and in accordance with the instructions from the Duke of York to Governor Andros, concerning the estate in America, of his former Governor Lovelace, and which instructions were dated August 6th, 1674. There has been no evidence in fact, found by the writer that this confiscation was ever made, on the contrary, evidence has been submitted herein, to the effect that the Jans Bogardus lands were under lease to the Trinity Church Corporation, both prior and subsequent to the Queen Anne grant of 1705.

CHAPTER EIGHT

VITAL STATISTICS, ETC., CONCERNING the

QUEEN ANNE GRANT

As regards the ambiguity of the northern boundary line of this grant, (note the reading of the grant as quoted in previous chapter) much stress. is laid upon that fact by Humbert, in his bill of complaint against the Trinity Church Corporation, in the trial of 1838, because it was charged by the Anneke Jans Bogardus heirs, as well as others, that the "Dominie's Hook" was situated immediately to the north of the old King's Farm, and between it and the old Duke's Farm, (62-acre Dominie's Bowery) and hence the encroachments as charged by Humbert.

In further regard to the location of the "Dominie's Hook" (the 130-acre tract) and the idea of that named tract being on Manhattan Island, I quote from Stephen P. Nash, L. L. D., in his book "Anneke Jans Bogardus Farm," (written for Trinity by him in 1898) and page 37 of the same.

"This property (the 130-acre tract) which after the death of the original owners, was erroneously assumed for many years, as well by the descendants of Mrs. Bogardus, as by officers connected with

Trinity Church, to have been upon New York Island, was, in fact, sold by the heirs or representatives of Mrs. Bogardus as late as January 1697, to one Pieter Praa, or twenty-seven years after the sale of the 62-acre farm to Colonel Francis Lovelace in 1670.

"The only grantors named in the deed are Johannes Van Brugh and Johannes Kip, (who had married Catrina Kierstead, a granddaughter of Mrs. Bogardus) but who professed to act for themselves in behalf of the rest of the children and heirs of Mrs. Bogardus, deceased, and do fully, clearly and absolutely grant, bargain, sell, alien. and transport unto the said Pieter Praa, the premises described (in the confirmatory grant from Gov. Nicoll to the heirs and previously quoted). This property passed under the will of Pieter Praa, the grantee named in this deed, and through various conveyances since then, forms a part of the property known as "Hunter's Farm," which for many years has been held by the Trustees of Union College."

Further attention will be directed to the location of this tract of land in the trial of Humbert, and the opinion of Senator Furman, in his plea before the Court at that trial, and the proceedings of which trial will be hereinafter quoted in part.

"From the standpoint of theory and through a process of analysis and deduction, it has been com

mented upon regarding the quietness of the heirs, as regards actions at law and otherwise, from 1670, the time of the joint conveyance to Col. Francis Lovelace, and through the period of 1705, the date of the Queen Anne grant, and in reference to this we again quote from Stephen P. Nash, in his book, "Anneke Jans Bogardus and her Farm,” page 47.

"The facts that have yet been discovered by exploring the fragmentary records of this olden time, fail to show that there was during a period of at least sixty-eight years, after the sale to Lovelace, any dissent on the part of any of the members of Mrs. Bogardus's family, from the propriety of that sale, or of any other of the sales during that period, nor was any claim made to the property sold, nor any attack set on foot against the title of any occupant until after the death of all of the original parties to the transaction, whose knowledge of its details would have prevented such an attack."

As regards the advancement of the foregoing theory by Mr. Nash, a contraventional argument has been interposed as follows:

From 1674, when the Jans Bogardus lands were reputed as confiscated for the benefit of the Duke of York, until 1705, the year of the mentioned Queen Anne grant, the Bogardus lands were controlled as Crown lands, it seems, consequently, it