- Call Number:
- HIL-MICL FC LSC .N4U5A7C6
- Category:
- Special Collections
- Creator:
- University of New Brunswick. Archives.
- Material Description:
- 1 microfilm textual records 35 mm
- Contents:
The Collection consists of the following:
Benedict Arnold, Loyalist resident of Saint John and Fredericton, Precipie for a Writ, Munson Hayt/Hoyt versus Benedict Arnold in Trespass, 8 May 1790; Benedict Arnold's claim against Edward Winslow, Jr. for a promissory note, 1789; Clarke and Gamble families' records, 1785-1929; Great Britain. Privy Council. Order-in-Council at the Court of St. James, 1784, regarding the separation of the western portion of Nova Scotia to become the new colony of New Brunswick, and Cape Breton to become a separate colony from Nova Scotia, with the provision of monies for the new civil establishments (typescript copy); Andrew Rainsford, Receiver-General and Assistant Barrackmaster of New Brunswick, accounts and business letters, 1786-1812.
- Originals:
The original records are held by the University of New Brunswick Archives.
- Finding Aids:
There is no complete Table of Contents at the beginning of the reel.
A document list is available as a PDF.
Online: Benedict Arnold and Monson Hayt fonds are digitized through UNB Archives & Special Collection's Gateway
- PDF Finding Aid:
- University of New Brunswick Archives Collection Document List.pdf
- Notes:
- There are two copies of this reel in the Special Collections section of the Loyalist Collection.
- The Rainsford family papers are incomplete on this microfilm reel, but a complete copy of the Rainsford papers is shelved in the Family Records section of the Loyalist Collection.
- The Clarke and Gamble Family Records are held on a separate reel and are available digitally (see Archives staff).
- A third copy of the Benedict Arnold papers is shelved in the Family Records section of the Loyalist Collection.
- The Acts and Statutes of the New Brunswick House Assembly were not included on the microfilm.
- The description on the film of the contents of the Order-in-Council document is inaccurate.