Daniel
Southwick, Jr., conveyed the same to Jonathan Flint in 1729 and he
conveyed it to John Jacobs in 1738. John Jacobs left it by will to his
son Daniel, who conveyed it to Zachariah King in 1775. By him it was
divided between his daughters Desire Procter and Mary Upton, in 1818,
and its history is thus brought within the knowledge of those now
living.

West of this Flint Pasture was the Procter fifteen acre lot, the
description of which in the deeds and depositions we can now
understand. How John Procter became owner of this fifteen acre lot
does not appear upon record, but as John Marsh appears, by the
depositions of Nathaniel Felton and Zachariah Marsh given above, to
have been the owner there originally, we may conjecture that the
title came from him by some unrecorded deed or otherwise.

The following deed, dated 5 Nov., 1681, and recorded Book 6, Fol. 48,
may throw some light on this question, as it apparently conveys the
eight acre lot which, as above mentioned, was conveyed by Anthony
Needham to his son-in-law Thomas Gould, in 1705, where John G.
Walcott, Jun., now lives.

Joseph Procter of Ipswich conveys to Anthony Needham of Salem "a
certain tract of land being the third part of twenty three acres of
land (formerly the land of John Herod) lying and being in ye towne of
Salem aforesaid, the said twenty three acres of land being bounded on
ye northerly side with ye land of ye said Needham, on ye south with ye
highway, on ye west with ye land of ye said Anthony Needham, and on ye
east with ye land now in ye occupation of John Procter."

Supposing this third part of the twenty-three acres to have been the
eight acre lot referred to above, being the only locality that would
agree with the description, the land in the "occupation of John
Procter" on the east side of the whole "twenty three acres" would be
the "Flint Pasture," part of the Downing Farm, which was then, in
1681, in the occupation of John Procter, as tenant. It is therefore
quite probable that the "fifteen acre" lot which John Procter owned
was the other two thirds part of the "twenty three acres," and that he
became possessed of it in the same way that his brother, Joseph
Procter, became possessed of the third part, perhaps in the division
of an estate. What the estate was may be ascertained by future
investigation.

The first we know positively of the lot in question as being John
Procter's is through the record of an action which he brough