An Early Stickney Story that Bears the Telling

Sarah Stickney, then 39 years old, was sentenced to be whipped or pay a fine. ~ Bethany Groff Dorau

Our uncle Amos Stickney (9U) was the son of our immigrant grandparents, William (10GGF) and Elizabeth Dawson Stickney (10GGM).  In 1637, the Stickneys had come from Yorkshire, England to settle in Rowley, MA.  Amos was born in 1637 in England shortly before his family emigrated.  In 1663, he married Sarah Morse and the couple had nine children like clockwork over the next fourteen years.

This is a story I came across recently that is not about our uncle Amos who died in 1678 at age 41.  No, this story is about Amos’ wife Sarah who may have been very lonely after his death.  The story comes from Bethany Groff Dorau, a descendent of John Atkinson, who figures in the story. Dorau wrote a three part article on Sarah's travails entitled "The Good, the Baud and the Ugly."

In March of 1691, widow Sarah Stickney was "presented by the town of Newbury for 'having.a child born January last.'" Since this was almost three years after Uncle Amos' death and she had not remarried, the town was not pleased.

Two women present at the birth appeared as witnesses. Sarah Stickney, then 39 years old, was sentenced to be whipped or pay a fine. She did not name the father, even in the throes of labor when she would have been interrogated by the midwives present.

Sarah paid the fine but not without putting in her two cents. She told friends that “the court did not regard the sin (of fornication) so long as they could get the money.”

In December, however, Sarah had a change of heart about keeping quiet. She filed a compaint, swearing that John Atkinson “is the father of my last child, a fact which I had concealed upon his promise to maintain the child which he now refuses to do.”

Once Sarah Stickney had officially charged Atkinson with fathering her child, the whole town got involved. There was precious little to do in March, 1682, when her case was called, and every ambulatory citizen of Old Newbury seems to have shown up to the Ipswich court (held in a tavern, naturally) to have a drink and watch the show. Audience participation was encouraged, and dozens of people testified on one side or the other. Sarah Haines came to court to reveal that she was present at the birth of the child and that Sarah Stickney had never named John as the father. Oh, and she also mentioned that Stickney had insulted the court.

One of the deponents in the trial was Sarah's son, our cousin John Stickney (1C10X). John, who was 15 at the time of his mother's tryst with Atkinson said that "John Atkinson came to his mothers house and desired her to let deponent get some wine for him, and at last Atkinson gave him some money and he went to Mrs. Ann White's and brought back a quart. They both drank freely and Atkinson sent deponent to bed, etc." John also testified in court that "after his mother's child was born Atkinson came to see her, took the child in his arms and kissed it, etc."

Another to testify was Hannah Merrick:

Sarah Stickney came into Jonathan Hayne's house when John Atkinson and his wife were there and asked said John if her were going to deny his child, whereupon John's wife called her an impudent baud. Then sarah used such opprobrious, reprachful and reviling speeches that Heynes told her to go out of the house but she would not depart. Then Goody Atkinson stepped to Goody Stickney "and Clapt her hand in her face and sd she would spit in the face of any that should call her a baud: and spit att her."

We'll leave the rest of the story to Bethany Dorau:

The town was divided on the veracity of her testimony, and dozens of people showed up at the Essex County Quarterly Court session to offer their take on the situation.

There were other possible fathers for Widow Stickney's baby, Atkinson argued. Sarah Stickney had been heard accusing Samuel Lowell of fathering her child, including once near the birth of the child. Lowell himself was ready to step up and promised to bring his new daughter “wittles and clouts”, or swaddling clothes. A third lover for the Widow Stickney was revealed by another witness, who had seen James Merrick (John Atkinson’s brother-in-law) sneaking into her house at night. For those of you keeping track at home, this would indicate that Sarah Stickney, mother of nine, had three lovers going at one time in 1680. Where did she find the time?

Note: It actually is amazing that Sarah found the time. When Uncle Amos died, Sarah had nine children ranging in age from 15 to an infant.

Sarah accused John Atkinson of slander. John accused Sarah of slander. They were both found guilty. Neighbors testified that John had started being very nice to anyone that might witness against him, settling old debts and mending literal and figurative fences. Despite this, John was found by a jury to be the father of Sarah Atkinson’s child and was ordered to pay “12 shillings for the jury, 8 pounds for the past maintenance of the child, and 2 shillings, 6 pence per week until further order of court.”

John went away mad but was back in court soon for beating Sarah with his walking stick “so that her child fell almost into the fire”. Her uncle and brother were witnesses and John Atkinson was ordered to pay a 26 shilling fine. This did little to cool his temper, and two months later, he was back in court.

“John Atkinson of Newbury, being the reputed father of Sarah Stickney’s last child, complained that he was hard put to it to pay all charges, and court ordered that half of his payments should be in money and the other half provisions or clothing for the said child at money price.”

Four months later, he was back yet again, arguing that there was a shortage of money, and he should not have to pay so much, and besides, he should only have to pay half since he was only one of two parents.

“I cannot think it is the mind of the Court that the whole maintenance of such a child should be put upon a reputed father (it is evident it is hers, & therefore hath just reason to bear half) whereby ye maintenance of such a child should arise to be double what others pay.” He also revealed that Sarah had been pregnant once before in her widowhood and had threatened a paternity suit (there is no proof of this), and if she was continuously granted child support, it would be “a precedent to induce such persons to commit lewdness when by their accusation they can force on wealthy persons and get increased income”.

John Atkinson already had a wife and nine children of his own, and argued that paying the full amount would make him a pauper. He demanded custody of the child, so that he would not be “kept a continual slave to her who hath injured me, and Impudently and scoffingly insulteth me.”

Atkinson understood the law, as he was a frequent participant in it. In addition to the fornication case, in 1682 alone he was in court numerous other times for various reasons, accused of swindling his neighbors, accusing them of swindling him, witnessing in a forgery case, and more. He understood that the court’s interest was in the support of the child, not the parental rights of Sarah Stickney. If he could find another solution that did not involve him paying her, and did not leave the child without support, the court would likely honor his rights as Mary’s father, which, after all, Sarah Stickney had taken such pains to prove.

There is scads more scintillating testimony, including one memorable scene when all of Sarah Stickney’s lovers get together and draw lots to see who would take responsibility for the pregnancy. John Atkinson drew the short straw. Furthermore, Sarah Stickney seems to have been a bit of a moral relativist, telling James Merrick that she and Samuel Lowell knew their lovemaking was a crime, sure, but so was smoking a pipe in the street, and one was “no more a sin” than the other.

The court did not free John Atkinson from his paternal responsibilities, but they did the next best thing. They told him that he could have the child and give it to someone else to raise. Perhaps the court knew that Sarah Stickney would never let this happen. John Atkinson certainly knew it. If Sarah didn’t give him the child, she was to “maintain the child at her own cost”. The child’s name was entered into the birth record as Mary Atkinson, born January 10, 1680.

John Atkinson went to Widow Stickney’s house to collect the child. Stickney told him to go pound sand, thereby giving up her right to child support. Atkinson then enacted part two of his plan. Having rid himself of responsibility for paying for Mary, he went after the Newbury town clerk. The court, rather unexpectedly, sided with Atkinson. “(Upon) being informed that the clerk of the writs of Newbery had entered the bastard child of Sarah Stickney of Newbury in the records of births as the child of John Atkinson, upon whom she charged it, although he did not own it, it was declared to be a high irregularity, and the clerk was ordered to appear at the next Ipswich court unless he give satisfaction to said Atkinson before that time.” The clerk was ordered to remove Atkinson’s name from the record, though he seems not to have done so.

The court was clearly ambivalent about the entire situation. They allowed John to petition to remove the “Atkinson” name from the child’s birth record but took a bit longer to relieve him of child support, since he had failed to find another placement for the child. In October, 1682, John’s wife Sarah tried her hand at petitioning the court. “(I have) been sorely troubled and perplexed by reason of the troubles falling upon my husband John Atkinson, which have been very changeable and vexatious by reason of the imperious dealings of Sarah Stickney…threatening and scoffing…so that mine and my children’s lives are wearisome to us, who cannot go up and down quietly, but meet with that which is grievous to us.”

The court extended the payments to Sarah Stickney to April 10, 1683, and if Widow Stickney had not handed over her daughter by then, all support would cease. Despite threats and cajoling and a serious financial motive, Sarah chose to raise her daughter alone, at her own expense.

The Merry Widow Stickney was not alone for long, however, marrying Stephen Ackerman (also spelled Acreman or Akerman) on December 17, 1684. They had two more children together, bringing the Widow Stickney’s kiddo count to at least twelve.

So it seems that all ended fairly well for the widow Sarah Stickney though Uncle Amos may have been turning over in his grave. Sarah was 45 years old when her last child was born in 1686. Her husband Stephen Ackerman died in 1795 when her youngest child was 9 years old. Sarah died in 1811 at age 70.