THE CREHORE FAMILY OF MASSACHUSETTS. BY MICHAEL J. O'BRIEN. In the Colonial cemetery at Milton, Mass., may be seen a large number of tablets and tombstones erected to the memory of members of the Crehore family, and although in many cases the inscriptions are so old as to be now indecipherable, copies of these inscriptions are to be found in the "History of the Town of Milton" by Mr. A. K. Teele. The founder of the family in America seems to have been Teague Crehore, who first appears at Dorchester, Mass., prior to the year 1650. According to a tradition in the family, he was at that time a mere boy who had been stolen from his parents in Ireland during the troubles that followed the war of 1641 and was brought to New England and sold as a "redemptioner." The genealogist of the family asserts that, while "the name is said to be of Irish origin, it is probable that his surname was given an erroneous orthography." However, it is not the surname alone that stamps him as of Irish origin, for, as the prenomen, "Teague," is exclusively and distinctively Irish, we may safely assert that he was of that nationality. The early portion of his career is hidden in obscurity, for it is probable that during this time he was an indentured servant to some New England planter, and the first appearance of his name on public records was in connection with his purchase, in December, 1660, from one John Gill of a piece of salt marsh. Among the Suffolk County Deeds (Liber 7, fol. 281) there is a record of a conveyance dated January 21, 1670, by Teague Crehore and Mary, his wife, to Robert Babcock of a plot of land bordering on the Neponset river. In the "Index to the Probate Records of Suffolk County," published by Elijah George, Register of Probate, there is recorded "the petition of Teague Crehore," in the year 1684. He married Mary Spurr of Dorchester, probably in 1665, and according to the Milton Parish Records the date of his death was January 3, 1695, at the age of 55 years, and on January 22, 1695, his widow took out Letters of Administration to his estate (Suffolk Probate Records, Liber 10, fol. 723). He was buired in what is now the family plot in Milton cemetery. His children were: Timothy, born October 18, 1666 Robert, born September 29, 1672 Ipsebah, born March 19, 1675 Rebecca, born March 19, 1675 Benjamin, born July 22, 1689 In Suffolk Deeds (Lib. 29, fol. 186) there is recorded a conveyance in the year 1714 to Timothy Crehore from Anne, Robert, Mary and Benjamin, of all their interest in the estate of their father, Teague Crehore. Timothy was the father of ten children, all born at Milton between 1689 and 1713. He married Ruth Riol on February 10, 1688. Both Timothy and his wife are buried in the family lot at Milton and their gravestones furnish the authority for the dates of their deaths, which were August 15, 1739 and June 27, 1750, respectively. Their eldest son's name was Timothy, born at Milton on December 26, 1689, where he is on record as a Deacon of the Parish. According to the Dorchester marriage records, on December 24, 1712, Timothy married Mary "Triscoll" whose proper name, according to Teele's "History of Milton" (page 562) was Mary Driscoll. On the records of the First Church of Milton there are entries covering the marriages of no less than 63 Crehores, as well as a large number of baptisms and deaths of people of the name. For several generations the eldest son of the family was named Timothy. The original Crehore estate at Milton seems to have passed out of the family with the sixth generation on the death of John Ames Crehore in the year 1877, who was the only one of the name then in the town and who died without issue. John, son of Timothy Crehore and Mary Driscoll, is on record at Milton during the French and Indian wars with the title of "Captain." Other Irish families also settled in this neighborhood, and on the Vital Records of the Town of Milton appear the following marriage entries: Susannah Kenney and Thomas Horton, December 25, 1693 Bridgett McMullen and Nathaniel Linscom, , 1767 Jemima Kenny and Silas Crane, December 13, 1770 John Sullivan and Nancy Jordan, September 11, 1796 1804 Among the baptisms and deaths are recorded, between 1772 and the end of the eighteenth century, such names as Dunigon, Roach, McCarney, Brien and Fling. THE KANE FAMILY IN AMERICA. BY MICHAEL J. O'BRIEN. The well-known Kane families of New York, Albany, Philadelphia, Boston and other places are descended from Colonel John O'Kane, who came from Ireland to this country in the year 1752. He was a son of a wealthy merchant and exporter of Belfast named Bernard O'Kane, whose original family name was O'Cahan. Bernard O'Kane married a famous Irish beauty, Rose O'Neill, daughter of Lord O'Neill of Shane's Castle, County Antrim, of the celebrated family of O'Neill whose name is so intimately associated with remarkable events that have occurred, not alone in Ulster, but in Ireland, for several centuries. John O'Kane was born at Creballagh, County Antrim, on December 12, 1734. There is a tradition in the family that he was sent to England to be educated, and although his parents were strict Roman Catholics, in his new environment the youth appears to have mingled with an irreligious set and before his return to Ireland had practically abandoned the ancient faith of his family. After his return home, it is said his refusal to rejoin the Catholic Church caused an estrangement with his father, with the result that he decided to send the obstinate youth out to the Colonies to make his own way in the world. He was shipped to New York with a cargo of linen to pay for his maintenance, until such time as he had ended an apprenticeship with a merchant friend of his father and could engage in business for himself. In course of time, he became one of the leading traders and merchants of New York and was the founder of the famous firm of Kane brothers, in which all of his sons subsequently entered. The Land Records show that he purchased a tract of land near Pawling in Dutchess County, New York, and about 1756 he located there near the home of Rev. Elisha Kent, with whom he was soon on very friendly terms and whose family introduced him into the leading society circles of the day. Soon after, he is seen to have dropped the prefix “O” from his name and publicly embraced the Protestant religion, doubtless the more easily to enable him to win the hand of Miss Sybil Kent, the daughter of Rev. Mr. Kent, whom he afterwards married. The Kents were a prominent family in Dutchess County and one of Rev. Mr. Kent's sons was the famous Chancellor. John O'Kane or Kane, as he always signed himself after his marriage -had seven sons and six daughters. His daughter, Maria, married Judge Joseph C. Yates, afterwards Governor of New York; another daughter, Sarah, married Thomas Morris, son of Robert Morris, the famous banker of the Revolution; and a third daughter, Sybil, married Jeremiah, son of General Robert Van Rensselaer. The elder Kane had a fine estate near Dover, Dutchess County, where he had for his nearest neighbor an Irishman named Charles Cullen, who is thought to have come from Ireland with him. Kane called his property "Sharovogues, after a place in Ireland owned by a maternal relative named Charles O'Hara, and which subsequently became part of O'Neill's Shane Castle property. For some years prior to the outbreak of the Revolution, the spacious mansion of the Kanes was the mecca of the young society people of the neighborhood, and the open-handed hospitality of the Kanes became a tradition among Dutchess County families. After the news from Lexington had reached the astonished people, the young men of the family entered heartily into the preparations which were soon under way by the local patriots to take part in the conflict with the British. In New York Colonial annals there is a record of a meeting of the Provincial Congress at Poughkeepsie, on November 8, 1775, at which John Kane was elected a delegate to represent Dutchess County. He did not, however, enter into the spirit of the time with the same enthusiasm which his sons afterwards exhibited. No man in the County was more highly regarded than was John Kane, but, like many other American country gentlemen of the time, he imagined he saw the utter futility of the sparsely-settled Colonies throwing themselves into a conflict with a great military power like England. Instead of casting his lot with the patriots, he adopted the mistaken policy of being friendly to both the Patriots and the Tories. "Carrying water on both (political) shoulders," however, was not popular in those days, and the unfortunate position that he assumed eventually brought down on the head of John Kane the wrath of the partisans of both sides. On this point, Hasbrouck, in his "History of Dutchess County," says: "the official headquarters of General Washington during |