In addition to my study of Josiah Berry of Kittery, I did a short study of his father-in-law, John Hidden. This man leaves even less records that Josiah!
John3 HIDDEN was born at Rowley, Mass. about 1688, son of John2 (Andrew1) and Elizabeth (Jewett) Hidden. It is likely that John married at Portsmouth, N.H. at the North Church on 4 July 1711 to (---) CROCKETT. [New Hampshire Genealogical Record 5(1908):41] It should be noted that the transcription says Joseph Hidden, however, since John Hidden is immediately thereafter having children baptized in Kittery, this must be an error. Perhaps the original document (which I have not seen) says Jo. Hidden which should be read John but is often mistaken for Joseph.
John has seven children baptized at Kittery, Maine. [Parish Records of the First Church & Society of Kittery, Maine 1714-1791, reprinted at NEHGR 151 (1997), various pages]. John left no land records. In fact, he is not even a witness to a land record in York County up to 1737 which is now searchable electronically. He left no probate papers. His first wife died after the birth of their last child in 1730 and before 1756. On 4 January 1756 John was admitted to full communion at the Kittery church [NEHGR 151:52]. On 25 April 1756, Rachel Clinton was also admitted to full communion at the same church [NEHGR 151:52]. These events preceded their marriage on 28 July 1756. [Vital Records of Kittery, Maine To the Year 1892, ed. Joseph C. Anderson II and Lois Ware Thurston (Camden, Me.: Picton Press, 1991), hereinafter Kittery VRS, p. 125]. She seems to be Rachel DOLBY who was the successive widow of Lawrence Amee and Jacob Clinton. John appears on a tax list at Kittery on 1 September 1760. He, thereafter, disappears from the records.
Most of this research is the product of one of his descendants, Richard M. Hunt, in his excellent article "The Hiddens Have Gone to Newburyport" The Essex Genealogist 24 (2004):165-68. I've added very little to his discoveries. It should be noted that this Hidden family is different from the Hatten family of the Isle of Shoals and Kittery that variantly spelled their surname Hidden. There is also a branch of the Heaton family living in Portsmouth.
The woman noted as [blank] Crockett in the first marriage record would seem to be part of the Thomas Crockett family of Kittery. How is the question. If married in 1711, she was born ca. 1690. She was born no earlier than 1685 based on the 1730 birth of her last child. Thomas had six sons: John (who died without children), Ephraim, Hugh, Elihu, Joseph, and Joshua. [All this from Gen. Dict. of Me. and N.H., p. 171-72] Ephraim left a will and his two daughters married men not named Hidden. Hugh's first recorded child was Margaret born 12 May 1698 with three more. If Margaret is the eldest, Hugh cannot be the father because any child of his would be too young to marry in 1711. Elihu left precious few records and is only given one son Thomas. Joseph left a will that named five daughters all by first name only. At least two of those daughters were known to be married when he wrote his will on 12 March 1713/14. All the daughters are accounted for with husbands except Mary Crockett who seems to be the woman who was admitted to full communion on 22 July 1716 at the Kittery Church as Mary Crockett [NEHGR 151:42]. Lastly Joshua who lived at Newington is given five children, and he left no will. There seems no conclusive evidence. Based on naming and the fact that Mary, the daughter of Joseph is alive as of his will writing, it would seem logical that it was she that married John Hidden. The 1716 Kittery church record could either apply to her sister-in-law Mary (Ball) Crockett, wife of Joseph (Jr.) or simply be scribal mistake and noted her maiden name rather than married name. Sadly, because John Hidden literally appears nowhere in land or probate records, there is no inference as to which Crockett branch he might belong to.
Children of John3 and (---) (Crockett) HIDDEN, all born in Kittery:
i. Joseph4 baptized 18 September 1715 [NEHGR 151:220], married Newbury, Mass., 29 September 1737, Mary HALE. This is the ancestor of Richard M. Hunt and the focal point of his article.
ii. David4 baptized 5 August 1716 [NEHGR 151:221]. No further record.
iii. Mary4 baptized 22 May 1720 [NEHGR 151:224] and likely born earlier based on her sister's baptism. Mary owned the covenant and was admitted to full communion on 30 July 1735 [NEHGR 151:46]. She is clearly the Mary Hidden, daughter of John named in a bastardy suit dated October 1739. Sadly only the initial petition survives so the specifics of the case, including its outcome, do not survive. However, Mary had intentions filed at Kittery on 5 March 1739/40 to David WELCH. [Kittery VRs, p. 102] Perhaps this was the father of the child. In any case, it appears the marriage never happened because intentions were filed again on 20 December 1740 to Josiah4 BERRY, son of George3 (James2 William1) and Deliverance (Haley) Berry. [Kittery VRs, p. 103]. For their family see the above hyper-link to Josiah Berry.
iv. Elizabeth4 baptized 6 November 1720 [NEHGR 151:225]. No further records.
v. Anne4 baptized 17 March 1722/23 [NEHGR 151:226]. She married at Kittery on 2 October 1742 [Kittery VRs, p. 215], Benjamin BILLING, son of Joseph and Hannah (Wilson) Billing. No further records.
vi. William4 baptized 26 July 1730 [NEHGR 151:234], although born earlier based on his brother's baptismal date. No further record.
vii. Robert4 baptized 20 September 1730 [NEHGR 151:234]. No further records.
Further thoughts on Andrew1 Hidden. I've seen many web sites and family trees that give his wife as Sarah Houston. Clearly they were married at Rowley on 7th day 4 mo. 1654 as "Andrew Headen and Sarah Hosetine." I would posit that Hosetine is a variant of Hasetine or Hazeltine, and therefore some relation to the Haseltine brothers who came to Rowley: John and Robert. See Patricia Law Hatcher's article on Rowley families in The Great Migration Newsletter 18 (2009):27 and National Genealogical Society Quarterly 68:10-11 for clues to their English origins. Based on their relative ages (the two brothers) and Sarah's age, she cannot be their daughter, but perhaps a niece or cousin.