XXU BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH. 



This seems the only way to settle the otherwise conflicting evidence, and when 

 we consider that these two men, of the same age, emigrating to New York at about 

 the same time, each having three children, of whom two were named William and 

 Hester (or Esther), it is certainly not surprising that they should have been con- 

 founded. The only difficulties in the way are the considerable resemblance of the 

 two signatures (considering the interval of about twenty years between them), and 

 the fact that Mrs. Dr. LeConte does not recognize in the seal attached to Guillaumo's 

 will above mentioned any now in her possession said to have descended from him. 

 This seal gives a full length effigies of a knight in armor on a rectangular plate 

 surrounded by cloud-like ornaments. But the fact that different seals exist which 

 have descended from him renders this fact of less importance. 



It might also be added that there are several other unaccountable facts which 

 affect the early history of the LeContes. I have mentioned that the names of 

 only two families occur in the census of New Rochelle in 1710, although all the 

 original LeContes with whom we are concerned came over to New York and vi- 

 cinity before or about the year 1700. There is also another list of New Rochelle 

 inhabitants, said to be of the year 1698, but more prol^bly belonging to J 71 2 (N. Y. 

 Coll. MSS. xlii, f. 69), in which no LeContes at all are mentioned, although 188 

 whites between the ages of 1 and 67 are given. Nor does the name occur in a 

 similar list of 51 7 persons (including about 220 white males) of Westchester County 

 (ibid f. 60). Nor in the census of the city of New York "about the year 1703," 

 where all the " masters of familys" are entered (Doc. Hist. N. Y. i, 611-24). 



My own brief researches having brought out so many facts, I can hardly doubt 

 than a closer investigation of early State and ecclesiastical documents will deter- 

 mine very certainly the relations of all the parties concerned. On the (inclusions 

 given above as a basis the following tables of lineage are' presented : 



Jacques b. 1658, m. Mary Laty, of St. Christopher (b. 1668) [7, 15.] 

 Hester b. 1693, m. Ezechicl Bonyot (nat. Ap. 21, 1719) [2, 15.] 

 Marianne bap. Feb. 5, 1719 [2.] 

 Esther " Aug. 25, 1717 [2.] 

 Ezechiel " Dec. 16, 1719 [2.] 

 Mario " Ap. 30, 1721 [2.] 



Guillaume b. 1694, m. Annette Martha [7, 12.] 



Francis m. [12.] 



Paul d. 1815 [12.] 



Josiah m. Anne Richd [12.] 



John m. (lie. Jan. 9, 1756) Catharine Van Horno [9, 12. ]» 

 Thomas [12.] 

 John m. Hannah Ferris [12.] 

 Samuel [12.] 

 Hannah [12.] 

 Eleanor [12.] 

 Joseph m. Hannah Raymond [12.] 

 Piatt [12.] 

 Francis [12.] 



* Bollon makes this John to have married Catherine, but it is impossible tliat he should 

 have been married when his great-grandfather was only 62 years old ; another John is 

 certainly meant. It is indeed far more likely that it was his great-grandfather's brother 

 Jean's son John. (11. v.^ 



