The Bay State Monthly — Volume 2, No. 1, October, 1884 by Various
page 35 of 122 (28%)
page 35 of 122 (28%)
![]() | ![]() |
|
A Petition of a Committee in Behalf of the Inhabitants of
_Dunstable_, within this Province, shewing, that that Part of _Dunstable_ by the late running of the Line is small, and the Land much broken, unable to support the Ministry, and other necessary Charges; that there is a small Part of _Groton_ contiguous, and well situated to be united to them in the same Incorporation, lying to the West and Northwest of them; that in the Year 1744, the Inhabitants there requested them that they might be incorporated with them, which was conceeded to by the Town of _Groton_; that in Consequence of this, upon Application to this Court they were annexed to the Town of _Dunstable_ with the following Proviso, viz. "That within one Year from that Time a House for the publick Worship of GOD should be erected at a certain Place therein mentioned": Which Place was esteemed by all Parties both in _Groton_ and _Nottingham_, so incommodious, that it was not complied withal; that on a further Application to this Court to alter the Place, Liberty was given to the Inhabitants of _Groton_ and _Nottingham_, to withdraw, whereby they are deprived of that contiguous and necessary Assistance which they expected: Now as the Reasons hold good in every Respect for their Incorporation with them, they humbly pray that the said Inhabitants of _Groton_ by the same Bounds as in the former Order stated, may be reannexed to them, for the Reasons mentioned. Read and _Ordered_, That the Petitioners serve the Inhabitants of _Groton_ therein refer'd to, as also the Clerk of the Town of _Groton_, with Copies of this Petition, that so the said Inhabitants, as also the Town of _Groton_, shew Cause, if any they have, on the first Tuesday of the next _May_ Session, why the Prayer thereof should not be granted. |
|