1701 Indian land colonial purchase starts New Jersey Horseneck Riots in 1745-1755

 In 1701, 13,500 acres west of Newark was purchased for $325 (or about 2.5-cents an acre) from Loantique, Taphow, Manshum and others. The original deed burned in a house fire in 1745. Descendants of the signers of the original deed promptly signed a new document. These deeds were challenged as being unlawful. According to a survey in 1746, only 35 families lived in the area. When Samuel Baldwin was arrested in 1745 for trespassing on his own land, his neighbors armed themselves with clubs, axes and crow-bars and descended on the jail to liberate him. The struggle against the Proprietors continued until 1755. Daniel Lamson and John Condict acted as agents for the Landowner's Committee and pleaded the settlers case to the King in England.

Cundicts, John and Peter, among other settlers, were deeded Indian lands in New Jersey in 1701 in an area known as Horse Neck or Horseneck.  The land purchase info (dates and surnames) is important for many reasons in understanding the surname variations (Cundit, Cunditt, Cundict) that contradict one another in the Condict and Condit family tree.
John and Peter died in 1713/1714 (respectively).  Later in 1745, John Condict ( referenced with the second "C"), (presumably John the Norman ancestor's grandson), negotiated with the King of England for the land owners during the Horseneck Riots.

It is interesting to note that family  historians said John arrived America 1678, and then we find sources that in 1701 he bought land in Newark as Cundict. Land was purchased along with/by/for his son Peter (also referenced as Cundict); yet,  eight years later, John had a will made in 1709 as Cunditt (remember, he could only sign with his mark, not a signature so likely still did not understand English after being in America over 20 years). The 1701 Horseneck deed to John Cundict did not translate to his 1709 will with the Cunditt surname. And, in this same will, someone named/interpreted the surname sounding/spelling of John's son, Peter, as Cundit--unusual, as it was not the same surname of  his father John noted with the surname of Cunditt in the will. Nor was Peter Cundit in his father John's will noted with Cundict surname, used eight years earlier in the Horse Neck land purchase. Peter Cundit  and his seven children noted in John's 1709 will were not referenced with the Cundict name used in Peter's 1714 will. Why would Peter have a different surname than his father John? Not very likely is highly is a good guess. Then some 30 years later,  the grandson, John, uses the surname Condict (in 1745), as a negotiator with the King of England for the Horse Neck land owners.
Yet another historical reference source, names John and Deborah Cundit (page 33-34), and describes briefly, the Horseneck purchase and riots (page 44/45):  https://ia902709.us.archive.org/12/items/themountainsociet00hoyt/themountainsociet00hoyt.pdf

These historical references show the surname inconsistencies/contradictions, and that Cundict was not the surname set in stone as some members of the Condit branch  often contended, and as used in the 1885 & 1916 Condit Family Association genealogy books, citing excerpts of wills and other surname spellings of the family tree.

 sources:  http://www.titchenal.com/hert2a.php
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~genepool/njriots1.htm