Third Generation
Third Generation
Family of Jean Esmonnot dit Serrey (2) & Jeanne Fidele
4. Jean-Pierre Esmonnot (Jean Esmonnot dit Serrey2, Jean Esmonnot1). Born on 11 Nov 1711 in Bethoncourt, Principauté de Montbéliard, Holy Roman Empire.1
5. Jean Georges Esmonnot (Jean Esmonnot dit Serrey2, Jean Esmonnot1). Born in Dec 1722 in Bethoncourt, Principauté de Montbéliard, Holy Roman Empire.1
6. Frédéric-Melchior Emoneau (Jean Esmonnot dit Serrey2, Jean Esmonnot1). Born on 18 Feb 1727 in Bethoncourt, Principauté de Montbéliard, Holy Roman Empire.1 Frédéric-Melchior died in First Peninsula, Lunenburg Co., Nova Scotia, British North America, on 19 Mar 1791; he was 64.
The following has been taken from the article by Kenneth S. Paulsen: ‘The Emoneau Family of the Principality of Montbéliard and Lunenburg Township, N.S.’, NEXUS 12 (1995): 146-152.
Until 1791, when Frederic Emoneau, his wife Elizabeth, and one of their granddaughters were murdered by Frederic’s godson, George Frederick Bouteillier, and his brother, John, there had been no murdeers at Lunenburg since the Mi’kmaq raids on the 1750s. In the early morning hours of Saturday, 19 March 1791, Nicholas Eisenhauer and Joseph Contoy (Contois) of Second Peninsula saw the Emoneau house burning across the bay on First Peninsula. The winter of 1790-91 had been cold, and Contoy and Eisenhauer were able to cross the inlet on solid ice. When they reached the Emoneau house, they found Frederic’s charred, clothed remains, but nothing of his wife and granddaughter. A short distance from the house, they discovered Frederic’s hat and a pool of frozen blood in the snow. Moccasin tracks were found as well.
At this point the evidence suggested murder, but no one knew for sure. Circumstantial evidence from other witnesses that implicated George Frederick and John Bouteillier, who were indicted for making:
"...an assault...with certain large sticks of no value, which they severally in their hands then and there held, [upon] him the said Frederick Eminaud in and upon the head, breast, back, belly, sides and other parts of the body …. [They] then and there feloniously, willfully and of their malice afore-thought, divers times did strike and beat … him ... with the sticks aforesaid, several mortal strokes, wounds and bruises in and upon the head, breast, back, belly, sides, and other parts of the body … of which mortal strokes, wounds and bruises he then and there instantly died."
During the trial, William Cheney, the husband of Susannah (Bouteillier) Cheney, indicated that he had not seen George Frederick and John Boutelier either at the schooner belonging to their brother, David, or on his way back to his mother-in-law’s house about 6 p.m. on Friday, 18 March. The defendants had told William Cheney they would meet David Bouteillier at Indian Point, about a two-hour journey from their mother’s house on the Northwest Range across Mahone Bay. Susannah Cheney testified that her brothers had left between 2 and 3 p.m. to meet David Bouteillier and his schooner. She also said that George Frederick and John never their mother’s house after arriving there Wednesday, and that they spent the previous night at Emoneau’s house, sharing supper with them. She further mentioned that they had a tomahawk and moccasins, uncommon in Lunenburg. Susannah’s account was corroborated by a fourth brother John Peter Bouteillier who lived at home with their mother, Catherine. Yet another brother, Joseph Bouteillier, who was visiting his mother’s home when David arrived, gave a similar account; he said that George Frederick and John had visited the Emoneaus on Tuesday and spent the night there. Lastly, David Boutelier testified that his brothers arrived aboard his schooner two hours before sunrise on Saturday, 19 March, and stayed only long enough to sleep. According to David, his brothers had originally planned to travel Halifax with him but left on their own, saying they needed to return to Tatamagouche. David testified they had an axe with them.
Surviving testimony suggests that the Bouteillier brothers took considerably more time than the two hours necessary to cross the ice from Martin’s Brook or Mader’s Cove to Oakland or Indian Point on 18 March. The late winter ice in Mahone Bay was broken in places, and the evening of 18/19 March had been foggy. However, all indications are that the Bouteilliers used their flat to cross Mahone Bay.
The remaining trial witnesses were either neighbours of the Emoneaus or residents of Lunenburg township. George Michael Smith/Schmidt, a neighbour, testified that on Wednesday, Frederick Emoneau had mentioned the Bouteilliers’ unexpected visit Tuesday evening. Smith also recalled Emoneau telling him that he was to receive £50 on Thursday. James Stewart, the attorney who published the trial transcript, implied that Frederick Emoneau may also have mentioned the £50 to his godson.
George Böhner [Boehner] testified that he saw tracks leading, originating where the Bouteilliers’ flat had been moored, leading to and from the murder site. These moccasin tracks had run through the woods -- not along the common roads or paths -- and that the footprints varied in size suggesting two persons walking single file. The Bouteillier brothers had two pairs of moccasins when they left their mother’s house, but were not wearing them, according to their siblings’ testimony. Andreas Jung, who accompanied Böhner tracing the tracks, confirmed Böhner’s testimony. Peter Langille and George Thethoff placed the Bouteillier brothers at Martin’s Brook mill about 6 p.m. Friday. Peter Langille stated that he resided at Northwest and recognized the two men as the Bouteilliers from Tatamagouche. Like Thethoff, he noted that the Bouteilliers had a tomahawk and snowshoes. That Friday evening between 5 and 7 p.m, John Baukman (Bachman) observed them trying to cross the ice between his house on Second Peninsula and Philip Rothenhauser’s on First Peninsula, and that they were forced to turn back towards Calbach’s (Kaulbach) Mill. Baukman’s neighbour, John Lay, saw two men trying to cross the ice; they drew away before he could ascertain their identities.
Upon examination the Bouteilliers claimed that they had visited only their mother’s house; both said that they had landed their flat at Martin’s Brook on Wednesday morning (16 March), having spent the night on the water. They differed in the time they claimed to have left their mother’s house at the Northwest Range; George Frederick said they had left at noon on Friday 18 March, returned to Martin’s Brook and arrived at David’s schooner about 8 p.m., while John stated that they had left their mother’s house around 5 p.m., then went to Martin’s Brook and arrived at the schooner about 8 or 9 p.m. John had further stated that he had not seen Frederic Emoneau in four years; George Frederick had not seen him in three.
After the testimonies of the witnesses and the defendants, chief justice Thomas Andrew Strange of the Court of Oyer and Terminer summarized the case for the jury. He stated that the Bouteilliers were indicted for the intentional murder of Frederic Emoneau. The judge surmised that both had beaten him to death and that John gave the final blow with the tomahawk.
Because the evidence presented was circumstantial and no one had seen the Bouteilliers at the crime scene, the judge charged the jury, after carefully examining the witnesses’ statements, to consider:
1. Did death result from murder, or from an accidental house fire?
2., If there was a murder, who committed it?
After one and a half hours’ deliberations, the jury found the defendants guilty Frederic Emoneau’s murder. The judge surmised, based upon the evidence presented, that the Emoneaus were murdered late at night and the house deliberately burned with the bodies to destroy evidence of the murders. On 5 May 1791, Judge Strange, stating that the motive in the crime was financial, sentenced the brothers to hang on the site of Frederick Emoneau’s house; the sentence was carried out 9 May.
On the day before their execution, the Bouteilliers confessed to Rev. Richard Money that they had indeed come to Lunenburg to murder Frederic Emoneau. John had thought of the scheme, and both had planned the crime months in advance. After dinner on Friday, 18 May, they asked their hosts if they might stay the night. At 9 p.m., when Frederic Emoneau went out to the barn to collect hay for his guests’ bedding, they followed him outside and beat him to death with sticks (thinking mistakenly that no blood would be spilt), then went back into the house and similarly killed Elizabeth and Catherine, who had tried to escape through a window. The brothers smashed a wooden chest hoping to find money, but were disappointed to find only £10. In their confession, they claimed not to have spoken with Emoneau about money. Before leaving they brought Frederic’s body inside, and set the house afire to destroy evidence of the murders.
Some important physical evidence which arrived at Lunenburg after the trial proved that the Bouteilliers indeed committed the crime. When arrested by the Halifax sheriff at Shubenacadie, the Bouteilliers had in their packs a shirt, a broken piece of red chalk and other items from the Emoneau house. Although it arrived late, theisevidence confirmed the defendants’ guilt, especially after the brothers’ confession to Rev. Money, as Frederic Emoneau, Jr. had the matching piece of red chalk in his possession.
The Bouteillier brothers were each indicted on only one count of murder -- that of Frederic Emoneau. It is implicit throughout the proceedings that the defendants were also on trial for the murders of Elizabeth and Catherine Emoneau, although not so formally charged. However, neither the judge during the trial, nor Stewart in the published transcript, addressed the question of the deaths of the Emoneau women. The brothers’ indictment on only one count of murder does not necessarily imply that the lives of women in the eighteenth century were less valued than men; since no physical remains of Elizabeth and Catherine were found (and given the limited forensic techniques of 1791), it would have been difficult to charge the Bouteilliers with their murders. In addition, although the blood on the snow (later shown to be Frederic’s) indicated fould play, no other evidence linked the Bouteilliers to the murder of Elizabeth and Catherine Emoneau.. Given the nature of eighteenth-century justice, however, the Bouteilliers’ conviction on one count of murder still meant their execution for three.
The following has been taken from the article by Kenneth S. Paulsen: ‘The Emoneau Family of the Principality of Montbéliard and Lunenburg Township, N.S.’, NEXUS 12 (1995): 146-152.
Until 1791, when Frederic Emoneau, his wife Elizabeth, and one of their granddaughters were murdered by Frederic’s godson, George Frederick Bouteillier, and his brother, John, there had been no murdeers at Lunenburg since the Mi’kmaq raids on the 1750s. In the early morning hours of Saturday, 19 March 1791, Nicholas Eisenhauer and Joseph Contoy (Contois) of Second Peninsula saw the Emoneau house burning across the bay on First Peninsula. The winter of 1790-91 had been cold, and Contoy and Eisenhauer were able to cross the inlet on solid ice. When they reached the Emoneau house, they found Frederic’s charred, clothed remains, but nothing of his wife and granddaughter. A short distance from the house, they discovered Frederic’s hat and a pool of frozen blood in the snow. Moccasin tracks were found as well.
At this point the evidence suggested murder, but no one knew for sure. Circumstantial evidence from other witnesses that implicated George Frederick and John Bouteillier, who were indicted for making:
"...an assault...with certain large sticks of no value, which they severally in their hands then and there held, [upon] him the said Frederick Eminaud in and upon the head, breast, back, belly, sides and other parts of the body …. [They] then and there feloniously, willfully and of their malice afore-thought, divers times did strike and beat … him ... with the sticks aforesaid, several mortal strokes, wounds and bruises in and upon the head, breast, back, belly, sides, and other parts of the body … of which mortal strokes, wounds and bruises he then and there instantly died."
During the trial, William Cheney, the husband of Susannah (Bouteillier) Cheney, indicated that he had not seen George Frederick and John Boutelier either at the schooner belonging to their brother, David, or on his way back to his mother-in-law’s house about 6 p.m. on Friday, 18 March. The defendants had told William Cheney they would meet David Bouteillier at Indian Point, about a two-hour journey from their mother’s house on the Northwest Range across Mahone Bay. Susannah Cheney testified that her brothers had left between 2 and 3 p.m. to meet David Bouteillier and his schooner. She also said that George Frederick and John never their mother’s house after arriving there Wednesday, and that they spent the previous night at Emoneau’s house, sharing supper with them. She further mentioned that they had a tomahawk and moccasins, uncommon in Lunenburg. Susannah’s account was corroborated by a fourth brother John Peter Bouteillier who lived at home with their mother, Catherine. Yet another brother, Joseph Bouteillier, who was visiting his mother’s home when David arrived, gave a similar account; he said that George Frederick and John had visited the Emoneaus on Tuesday and spent the night there. Lastly, David Boutelier testified that his brothers arrived aboard his schooner two hours before sunrise on Saturday, 19 March, and stayed only long enough to sleep. According to David, his brothers had originally planned to travel Halifax with him but left on their own, saying they needed to return to Tatamagouche. David testified they had an axe with them.
Surviving testimony suggests that the Bouteillier brothers took considerably more time than the two hours necessary to cross the ice from Martin’s Brook or Mader’s Cove to Oakland or Indian Point on 18 March. The late winter ice in Mahone Bay was broken in places, and the evening of 18/19 March had been foggy. However, all indications are that the Bouteilliers used their flat to cross Mahone Bay.
The remaining trial witnesses were either neighbours of the Emoneaus or residents of Lunenburg township. George Michael Smith/Schmidt, a neighbour, testified that on Wednesday, Frederick Emoneau had mentioned the Bouteilliers’ unexpected visit Tuesday evening. Smith also recalled Emoneau telling him that he was to receive £50 on Thursday. James Stewart, the attorney who published the trial transcript, implied that Frederick Emoneau may also have mentioned the £50 to his godson.
George Böhner [Boehner] testified that he saw tracks leading, originating where the Bouteilliers’ flat had been moored, leading to and from the murder site. These moccasin tracks had run through the woods -- not along the common roads or paths -- and that the footprints varied in size suggesting two persons walking single file. The Bouteillier brothers had two pairs of moccasins when they left their mother’s house, but were not wearing them, according to their siblings’ testimony. Andreas Jung, who accompanied Böhner tracing the tracks, confirmed Böhner’s testimony. Peter Langille and George Thethoff placed the Bouteillier brothers at Martin’s Brook mill about 6 p.m. Friday. Peter Langille stated that he resided at Northwest and recognized the two men as the Bouteilliers from Tatamagouche. Like Thethoff, he noted that the Bouteilliers had a tomahawk and snowshoes. That Friday evening between 5 and 7 p.m, John Baukman (Bachman) observed them trying to cross the ice between his house on Second Peninsula and Philip Rothenhauser’s on First Peninsula, and that they were forced to turn back towards Calbach’s (Kaulbach) Mill. Baukman’s neighbour, John Lay, saw two men trying to cross the ice; they drew away before he could ascertain their identities.
Upon examination the Bouteilliers claimed that they had visited only their mother’s house; both said that they had landed their flat at Martin’s Brook on Wednesday morning (16 March), having spent the night on the water. They differed in the time they claimed to have left their mother’s house at the Northwest Range; George Frederick said they had left at noon on Friday 18 March, returned to Martin’s Brook and arrived at David’s schooner about 8 p.m., while John stated that they had left their mother’s house around 5 p.m., then went to Martin’s Brook and arrived at the schooner about 8 or 9 p.m. John had further stated that he had not seen Frederic Emoneau in four years; George Frederick had not seen him in three.
After the testimonies of the witnesses and the defendants, chief justice Thomas Andrew Strange of the Court of Oyer and Terminer summarized the case for the jury. He stated that the Bouteilliers were indicted for the intentional murder of Frederic Emoneau. The judge surmised that both had beaten him to death and that John gave the final blow with the tomahawk.
Because the evidence presented was circumstantial and no one had seen the Bouteilliers at the crime scene, the judge charged the jury, after carefully examining the witnesses’ statements, to consider:
1. Did death result from murder, or from an accidental house fire?
2., If there was a murder, who committed it?
After one and a half hours’ deliberations, the jury found the defendants guilty Frederic Emoneau’s murder. The judge surmised, based upon the evidence presented, that the Emoneaus were murdered late at night and the house deliberately burned with the bodies to destroy evidence of the murders. On 5 May 1791, Judge Strange, stating that the motive in the crime was financial, sentenced the brothers to hang on the site of Frederick Emoneau’s house; the sentence was carried out 9 May.
On the day before their execution, the Bouteilliers confessed to Rev. Richard Money that they had indeed come to Lunenburg to murder Frederic Emoneau. John had thought of the scheme, and both had planned the crime months in advance. After dinner on Friday, 18 May, they asked their hosts if they might stay the night. At 9 p.m., when Frederic Emoneau went out to the barn to collect hay for his guests’ bedding, they followed him outside and beat him to death with sticks (thinking mistakenly that no blood would be spilt), then went back into the house and similarly killed Elizabeth and Catherine, who had tried to escape through a window. The brothers smashed a wooden chest hoping to find money, but were disappointed to find only £10. In their confession, they claimed not to have spoken with Emoneau about money. Before leaving they brought Frederic’s body inside, and set the house afire to destroy evidence of the murders.
Some important physical evidence which arrived at Lunenburg after the trial proved that the Bouteilliers indeed committed the crime. When arrested by the Halifax sheriff at Shubenacadie, the Bouteilliers had in their packs a shirt, a broken piece of red chalk and other items from the Emoneau house. Although it arrived late, theisevidence confirmed the defendants’ guilt, especially after the brothers’ confession to Rev. Money, as Frederic Emoneau, Jr. had the matching piece of red chalk in his possession.
The Bouteillier brothers were each indicted on only one count of murder -- that of Frederic Emoneau. It is implicit throughout the proceedings that the defendants were also on trial for the murders of Elizabeth and Catherine Emoneau, although not so formally charged. However, neither the judge during the trial, nor Stewart in the published transcript, addressed the question of the deaths of the Emoneau women. The brothers’ indictment on only one count of murder does not necessarily imply that the lives of women in the eighteenth century were less valued than men; since no physical remains of Elizabeth and Catherine were found (and given the limited forensic techniques of 1791), it would have been difficult to charge the Bouteilliers with their murders. In addition, although the blood on the snow (later shown to be Frederic’s) indicated fould play, no other evidence linked the Bouteilliers to the murder of Elizabeth and Catherine Emoneau.. Given the nature of eighteenth-century justice, however, the Bouteilliers’ conviction on one count of murder still meant their execution for three.
On 4 Jan 1752 Frédéric-Melchior first married Elizabeth Esmonnot, daughter of Samuel-Frédéric Emoneau & Élisabeth Fleurdelys, in Bethoncourt, Principauté de Montbéliard, Holy Roman Empire.1 Born abt 1733 in Principauté de Montbéliard, Holy Roman Empire. Elizabeth died in First Peninsula, Lunenburg Twp., Nova Scotia, British America, bef Feb 1756; she was 23.
It is not known when Elizabeth Emoneau died. She was recorded in the victualling list of Lunenburg, Nova Scotia in June 1755. She may the mother of Jean George Emoneau and died in childbirth about January 1756. On 3 February 1756 her husband Frédéric Emoneau married Juliana Elisabetha Frankin, widow of Georg Jacob Feindel who had died in December 1755 leaving her with young children.
It is not known when Elizabeth Emoneau died. She was recorded in the victualling list of Lunenburg, Nova Scotia in June 1755. She may the mother of Jean George Emoneau and died in childbirth about January 1756. On 3 February 1756 her husband Frédéric Emoneau married Juliana Elisabetha Frankin, widow of Georg Jacob Feindel who had died in December 1755 leaving her with young children.
They had one child:
13i.
Jean George (~1756-1778)
On 3 Feb 1756 Frédéric-Melchior second married Juliana Elisabetha Frankin in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, British America.2 Born abt 1728 in Fsm. Pfalz-Zweibrücken, Holy Roman Empire. Juliana Elisabetha died in First Peninsula, Lunenburg Co., Nova Scotia, British North America, on 19 Mar 1791; she was 63.
Juliana Elisabetha Frankin had been married to Georg Jacob Feindel who died in December 1755. She had two or three surviving young children when she married Frédéric Emoneau of 3 February 1756. The Anglican death records of Lunenburg, Nova Scotia did not record the deaths of all infants and young children. Of the four recorded children of Georg Jacob Feindel and Juliana Elisabetha Frankin, Anna Apollonia Feindel appears to have died before June 1755 as she is not recorded in the victualling list of June 1755. Their last child was Georg Conrad Feindel who was baptized on 17 Jul 1755 having likely been born in June or early July 1755. There is no further record of this child indicating that he likely died as an infant. The birth of Georg Conrad Feindel in June or Julty 1755 makes it unlikely that she was the mother of Jean George Emoneau who was baptized 29 March 1756 which almost two months after the marriage of the widower Frédéric Emoneau and the widow Juliana Elisabetha Frankin Feindel. If Jean George Emoneau was the child of Juliana Elisabetha Frankin Feindel, it would have been unusual for the child to be baptized as an Emoneau rather than a Feindel due to issues of inheritance. Had Jean George Emoneau been the child of Julian Elisabetha Frankin Feindel, he would have been a legitimate heir to Georg Jacob Feindel, not Frédéric Emoneau.
Juliana Elisabetha Frankin had been married to Georg Jacob Feindel who died in December 1755. She had two or three surviving young children when she married Frédéric Emoneau of 3 February 1756. The Anglican death records of Lunenburg, Nova Scotia did not record the deaths of all infants and young children. Of the four recorded children of Georg Jacob Feindel and Juliana Elisabetha Frankin, Anna Apollonia Feindel appears to have died before June 1755 as she is not recorded in the victualling list of June 1755. Their last child was Georg Conrad Feindel who was baptized on 17 Jul 1755 having likely been born in June or early July 1755. There is no further record of this child indicating that he likely died as an infant. The birth of Georg Conrad Feindel in June or Julty 1755 makes it unlikely that she was the mother of Jean George Emoneau who was baptized 29 March 1756 which almost two months after the marriage of the widower Frédéric Emoneau and the widow Juliana Elisabetha Frankin Feindel. If Jean George Emoneau was the child of Juliana Elisabetha Frankin Feindel, it would have been unusual for the child to be baptized as an Emoneau rather than a Feindel due to issues of inheritance. Had Jean George Emoneau been the child of Julian Elisabetha Frankin Feindel, he would have been a legitimate heir to Georg Jacob Feindel, not Frédéric Emoneau.