Daniel PAUL of Kittery NOT marital relation with Thomas HANSON
Dr. Everett S. Stackpole's memory for the volume of the NYG&B Recorder was correct in which he saw a deposition regarding "Daniel Paul". (See Paul sketch in Pioneers.) However his memory as to the deponent is totally wrong.
The abstract reads: "Thomas HARRISON {my emphasis} of Redriffe in the county of Surrey, mariner, aged 50, deposes 7 March, 1636-7, that he was sent to Dunkirk . . . to buy a ship . . . .Deponent's son, Thomas Harrison, is to goe master of her, if he come from Holland before the shipp be ready; but if he come not, then deponent's brother-in-law, Daniel Paule of Ipswich, shipwright and mariner, is to goe master."
This Paul is therefore a relation by marriage to HARRISON, and not to Hanson.
A slip of memory by Stackpole or he didn't read his penciled notes correctly!
By the way, the phraseology of relation has two (2) meanings:that Harrison's sister could be Paul's wife, or that Pauls' sister could be Harrison's wife.Nothing is determinative on the basis of that one record either way.
And, too, this Daniel Paul may very well NOT be the DP of Kittery as this DP seems very established in skills and status: "shipwright and mariner."However, the abstractor thought that was the case without other evidence.See:
J. R. Hutchinson, "Some Notable Depositions from the High Court of Admiralty [Part 2]", The New York Genealogical & Biographical Record, 47 (Oct. 1916):332-333.
This is now being cross-posted at Hanson.