The Court met according to Adjournm^t y^e 30^th of July 1672.

Present

Ri: Bellingham Esq^r Gov^r	Eleazer Lusher
Joⁿ Leverett Esq^r dep^t Gov^r	Edw. Ting
	William Stoughton

Grand Jurie Sworne

m^r Joⁿ Phillips	Heugh Clarke	Thom: White Sen^r
Joⁿ Button	Joⁿ Smith	Edw^d Pitts
Joⁿ White Sen^r	Augustⁿ Clements	James Bates
Bart^o Cheevers	Ant^o Gulliver	Nathan^ll Bosworth
Griffen Crafts	Rob^t Twelves	Joⁿ Gay Sen^r Joⁿ Thurston Sen^r

Jurie of Trialls Sworne

m^r Joⁿ Faireweather	Nathan^ll Burrows	W^m Richards Sen^r
Rich^d Crispe	Thom: Baker	Edm^r Hubbert
Jerm: Cushing	Rob^t Searle	Benj^a Bosworth jun^r
Benj^a Gibbs	John Cleverly	Asahel Smith

Joshua Atwater, plaint. against Daniell Searle Esq^r Defend^t according to Attachm^t pl^t. Non Suited vpon non appear^e

[Wyborn v. Marshall]

John Wibourne, plaint. ags^t Robert Marshall Defend^t in an action of the case for witholding about twelue pounds in mony due for Service done as Ma^r onboard or about the Pincke Lenham as by Agreement vnder the hand of the saide Marshall, bearing date y^e 17^th of January last past may appeare, & all due damages according to Attachm^t dated y^e 7^th day of May 1672 . . . the Jurie . . . found for the pl^t four pounds according to contract & costs of Court being 24^s 8^d

Execucion issued for £5. 4. 8 mony Xber. 20:1672.

[Apparently the continuation of a case begun before the Commissioners’ or Strangers’ Court at Boston on June 18, 1672. Writ against Robert Marshall to appear at the Commissioners’ Court on that date to answer to John Wyborn is in S. F. 1120.1. The following evidence was taken at that time (S. F. 1120.3):

The testimony of Thomas Wyborne aged 37 yeares or there about testifieth and saith that some considerable tyme since the Pink Lenham arrived at Boston from puscataqua I this depo^nt did heare Robert Marshall often and severall tymes say that John Wiborn had faithfully and truely served him both for fidelity and abillity in what he was about and not onely at Puscataque aboard the said pinke but also in the voyage to Boston as Master and Pilot And that after John Wiborne had informed the said Marshall that he could get no money of Thomas Clarke vpon the accompt of them nootes written to him then the said Marshall did say it was very well done of the said Wyborns part and that hee did alow and approve of what the said Wiborne had done, and that he the said Marshall would take order for money to pay spedily the said Wiborne & company their wages to content according to former contract vnder the said marshalls hand, And also the said wiborne did aske the said marshall severall tymes for provisions for the mens necessities, and Marshall did promise to pay and satisfie in money whatsoeu[er] the said wyborne had layd out or expended for him selfe or for the said Marshall or the Pink Lenham or for whatsoever hee stood as suerty for the companey of what nature soever desiring that the said Wiborne would pas his word for him a little longer in any publick house, the said Marshall did say that his credit would not pas, & that he would pay him all his former expences and disbursments and also that [he] would pay whatsoeu[er] the said wyborne did stand ingaged for him selfe the Pink or Company in money.

Sworne in Court the 18^th of June 1672 as attest Robert Howard Cler Cur Comiss

Other testimony to the same effect is in S. F. 1120.2, 4. Marshall entered a counter suit against Wyborn at the October Court, but was non-suited. Below, p. 174.] [61]

[Kent v. Smith]

William Kentt pl^t ags^t Thomas Smith Defend^t in an Acion of the case for Selling vnto the saide pl^t a Serv^t woman w^chthe saide Defend^t brought out of England, cal’d by the name of Sarah Blacklock, who did acknowledge aboard the Vessell to the saide Defend^t & others, that she was guilty of a capitall crime w^ch she had committed in old England w^ch is conceived to bee the murthering of a Childe, she had by a dutchman in England which is by her one confession in Court. And that the saide Defend^t did conceale the same from the plaint. although hee formerly knew it, and is now by law taken of by Authority & committed to prison, for w^ch Serv^t the plaint. gave the Defend^t Eight pounds in mony, w^ch Serv^t was never made over according to law by the Defend^t but refused to doe the Same & due damages according to attachm^t dated v^e 21^th of June, 1672. . . . The Jurie . . . founde for the pl^t Eight pounds dammage in m^o & costs of Court, w^ch was twenty six shillings & eight pence.

Execution issued y^e 8^th Aug^o 72 for 9^li 6^s 8^d m^o

[See below, pp. 149, 164–5, 185, 189, 237.]

Lidgett ags^t Leonard

Peter Lidgett Assigne of Henry Tailor pl^t ags^t Henry Leonard defend^t for non paiment of one hundred sixty two pounds Seventeene shillings ninepence, due by bond vnder his hand & seale bearing date the 13^th day of October 1670, w^th Interest & damage for nonpaiment according to time & other due damages according to Attachm^t dated y^e 21^th June 1672. . . . The Jurie . . . found for the P^lt the forfeiture of the bond three hundred twenty five pounds fifteen shillings, sixpence & costs of Court w^ch was thirty three shillings and two pence.

Execucion issued vlt^o April 1673 for 327^li: 8:8:

Woodmancy ags^t Joy

John Woodmancy, pl^t ags^t Thomas Joy Defend^t in an action of the case for witholding the summe of three hundred Seventy & eight pounds seven shillings and eight pence or thereabouts in m^o & other currant pay due to the saide Woodmancy by booke as appeareth by aco^ts & other due damages according to Attachm^t dated y^e 8^th day of May 1672. . . . The jurie . . . found for the pl^t 378^li 7^s 8^d accord to acco^t & costs of Court w^ch is 56^s 2^d

Execucion issued Aprill 11^th 1673 for 378^li 7^s 8^d accord. to Acco^t & 56^s 2^d m^o.

[See above, pp. 45, 64, 101, 103, and below, pp. 134, 145, 149. Copies of the execution, return, and apprisement, are in S. F. 1261. Joy’s frame house near the North Meetinghouse was appraised at 30l; a lot 25 feet front and 71 feet depth “fronting to the great Street before the S^d meetinghouse,” at 48s per foot; a lot 37 foot 10 inches front, 40 foot depth “fronting to the Lane that goes down from the North meetinghouse to the waterside,” at 40s per foot; a backlot to the house, 38 by 40 feet, 20l] [62]

Carver ags^t Jennings

Robert Carver plaint. ags^t John Jenning’s Defend^t in an accion. of the case for the forfeiture of one hundred pounds Sterl. for the saide Jennings breache of the 8^th Article made, indented & fully concluded vpon at Jamaica y^e 19^th day of Feb^r 167½ vnder his hand & Seale, as reference being had vnto the saide 8^th & last Articles may & doth more at lardge appeare. & all other due dammages according to Attachm^t Dat. y^e 18^th of July. 1672 . . . the Jurie . . . finde for the Defend^t costs of Court.

Norman ags^t Long

Thomas Norman, Attorny of Walter Woode pl^t ags^t Zechariah Long Defend^t in an accion of the case for the breach of a penall Bond in the Summe of three hundred pounds of good & lawfull mony of England, & due dammages according to Attachm^t Dat the 7^th day of June 1672 . . . the Jurie . . . finde for y^e plaint. the forfeiture of the Bond 300^li good & lawfull mony of England & costs of Court.

Execucion issued y^e 3^d of Aug^o 72 for 300^li Lawfull mony of England.

Davenport ags^t Wharton

Eleazer Davenport plaint. ags^t Richard Wharton Defend^t in an accion of the case for refusing or neglecting to pay the Summe of Six pounds, due to the saide Davenport as aforesaide for three dayes demorage according to Charter-party bearing date London 31^th January 1671 & other due dammages according to Attachm^t Dat. y^e 25^th day of July 1672 . . . the Jurie . . . finde for the plaint. Six pounds mony dammage & costs of Court.

Blaney ags^t Page

John Blaney, in behalfe of himselfe & the rest of his Owners plaint. ags^t Nicholas Page Defend^t in an accion of the case for the forfeiture of two hundred pounds Sterl. mony of New England for his the s^d Page his breach of Covenant or Covenants mencioned in a Charter party vnd^t his hand & Seale bearing date the 9^th of march 16⁷⁰/₇₁. & all other due dammages according to Attachm^t Dat. y^e 18^th of July 1672 . . . the Jurie . . . finde for the Defend^t costs of Court. [63]

Toy ags^t Howard

Isaiah Toy, plaint. ags^t John Howard Defend^t in an accion of the case for depriving him of the vse of his mare by taking her into his custody & riding her & deteining her illegally to the great dammage of the saide Toy & other due dammages according to Attachm^t Dat. the 22^th of July 1672 . . . the Jurie . . . finde for the plaint the mare in controversy or ten pounds mony dammage & costs of Court.

Jennings ags^t Carver

John Jennings, plaint. ags^t Robert Carver Defend^t according to Attachm^t Dat. the 16^th of July 1672. The plaint. in failor of process is non Suited.

Checkly ags^t Shaw

Anth^o Checkly assigne of John Viall plaint ags^t John Shaw Defend^t in an accion of Debt for non paim^t of thirteene pounds in currant mony of New England due by bill w^th other due dammages according to Attachm^t Dat. July 13^th 1672 . . . the Jurie . . . finde for the plaint. thirteene pounds mony dammage, & Costs of Court w^ch was twenty six shill.

Execucion issued 6^th Aug^t 72 for 14^li 6^s m^o execucion renew^d y^e 15^th 5m^o 73 for 4^li 18^s

Norman ags^t Salter

Thomas Norman, plaint. against Will^m Salter Defend^t in an accion of the case for neglecting of his deuty in the safe keeping of Paul Parker, formerly committed a prisoner to his custody on suspicion of gameing who made his Escape to the dammage of the saide Norman in the Summe of 25^li lawfull money of New England according to the judgm^t of the Court of Assistants as by the records more particularly may appeare & all other due dammages according to Attachm^t Dat. the 25^th of July 1672. . . . The Jurie . . finde for the Defend^t costs of Court.

Bunn ags^t Hearcy

Edward Bunn of Hall plaint. ags^t John Hearcy & Ephraim Hewet of Hingham vpon appeal from the Commission^rs Court of Hingham. After the Attachm^t Courts judgm^ts & Evidences produced were read. . . . The Jurie . . . finde the reversion of the former judgm^t. Six pence a hogg dammadge for as many as were impounded & costs of Courts. [64]

Clark ags^t Bridgham

Richard Collicott Hump^r Hodges & Anth^o Checkly, or either of them Attorny of Thomas Clarke late of Plim^o pl^t ags^t M^rs Bridgham widow & relict of M^r Henry Bridgham late of Boston deceased Defend^t in an accion of reveiw of an Accion of the case of ninety pounds commenced by the saide Clarke ags^t the saide M^rs Bridgham at a County Court held in Boston in April last, for vnlawfully witholding & refusing to deliver vnto the saide Clarke a Summe of mony of his of above forty four pounds w^ch shee clandestinely received of Alice late wife to the saide Thom: Clarke without his knowledge, consent or approbacion, it being committed vnto her by the saide Alice who never had power soe to doe, vpon w^ch accion judgmen^t was granted against the saide Clarke for Costs of Court much to his dammage in regard the aforesaide Summe of mony is properly the Estate of the saide Clarkes w^th other due dammages according to Attachm^t Dat. July 22^ond 1672. . . . The Jurie . . . finde for the pl^t forty four pounds mony in controversy & costs of Court. Elder John Wiswell as Attorny for the Defend^t appealed from the judgm^t of this Court to the next Court of Assistants & accordingly the saide Elder Wiswell in Eighty four pounds as principall & M^r Anth^o Stoddard & Cap^t Edw. Hutchinson as Sureties in forty two pounds apeice acknowledged themselves jointly & Severally bound to . . . prosecute his Appeale . . .

[See above pp. 99–100. Mrs. Bridgham died about November 1, 1672, and the Court of Assistants allowed Thomas Clarke to begin the case de novo; see below, p. 201. Mrs. Bridgham’s will and the inventory of her estate follow (S. F. 1177.4, 6):

In the Name of God Amen

I Elisabeth Bridgham of Boston Widow, being sick of body, but perfect in memory, blessed bee God, Doe make this my Last Will & Testament as followeth—Inp^rmis I commit my Soul into the Mercifull hands of God my Creator & Redeemer, & my body to earth from whence it came, hoping that at the last day it shall arise a glorious body, Like unto the body of my Lord & Saviour Jesus Christ; & my Estate, which my Late Husband Henry Bridgham by his last Will Left mee to dispose of, (that is to say) one hundred pounds & all the household goods, the which I doe give & bequeath as followeth First I give & bequeath unto my eldest Son John out of the one hundred pounds aforemencioned to buy bookes with the Summe of Fifty pounds, & the other fifty pounds I give & bequeath as followeth (that is to say) forty pounds unto my Son Joseph, & the other ten pounds unto my other four Sons to bee equally devided between them; Further I give unto my Son John a new paire of blew Curtaines & vallants, that haue not been vsed. Itm. I give & bequeath unto my Son Jonathan the best paire of greene Curtains & valiants, my best greene Rugg, the best Feather bed & boulster, with the best bedsteede, & the rest of my household goods, I give & bequeath unto all my six Sons to bee equally devided between them.

Itm. it is my further minde according as in my saide Husband’s Will is provided, That in case any of my saide Sons shall take any jndirect course, it shalbee in the power of my overseers hereafter named to cut short & lessen what I haue given unto them & bestow the same on such of them as shall better deserve the same.

Itm. I give unto my Sister Hannah Buttall my best cloth gowne my best black Cloake & my best wearing Linnen, & the rest of my Wearing apparrell, I give unto such poor persons as the discretion of my Over Seers shall thincke fit: And I doe appoint my Son Jonathan Executo^r of this my last Will & Testam^t & m^r Anthony Stoddard, Deacon Robart Sanderson & Deacon Henry Allen Deacons of the first Church of Boston Over Seers of this my saide Last Will & Testament, & all other former Wills, gifts & bequests I revoake & make voide for ever by these pu^rsents. In Witness whereof I the saide Elisabeth Bridgham haue hereunto Set my hand & Seale, this second day of August in y^e yeare of o^r Lord, one thousand six hundred Seventy two.

[Attested copy]	Elisabeth Bridgham
	Her × marke & a seale

An Inventory of the Goods & Chattles of M^rs Elisabeth Bridgham Deceased, taken by us whose Names are hereunto Subscribed y^e 12^th of 6^th m^o 1672.

	l s d
A Long Table, a round Table & two formms	02:00:00
an old Carpet. 3. Cushions. 2 Leather Chaires	00:15:00
a paire of Cobjrons & an jron back	01:00:00
a Feather bed, 3. blanketts a Rugg, curtaines and bedsteed. 2 boulsters & two pillows	09:00:00
a Trundle bedsteed, a feather bed, boulster, two blanketts & a Rugg	04:03:00
a Long Table. 8 joint Stools. 4 Chaires & 2 Cushions	02:07:00
a court Cupboard, a Chest, a Cupboard cloth a box & booke case	02:10:00
a paire of andjrons, fire Shovell, tongs, warming pan & jron back	02:05:00
7 paire of course Sheets. 2. Table cloths. 12 Towells	03:10:00
a brass Morter & pestle. 4. earthen Dishes, two window Curtaines & 2 Smoothing jrons	00:17:00
a Featherbed. 2. boulsters. 3. blanketts. 3. pillows, a Rugg, Curtains & bedsteede	11:00:00
a Rugg, a blanket, a new paire of Searge Curtains an old paire of Curtains,
a Carpet. 2 window Curtains & 2 little Carpets	10:00:00
a Court Cubpoard Cupboard cloth, 1 Chest. 3. Truncks, a round Table,
6. Chaires. 4. Cushions & a Skreane	09:00:00
In Pewter	07:10:00
4. paire of Sheets. 4. paire of pillow beers. 2. dozⁿ & 3. Napkins. 2. table Cloths. 2 Towells & Cupboard Cloths. 3 Table Cloths & a halfe Sheete	09:00:00
a Feather bed, a boulster. 4. pillows. 3 blankets, a coverlid, curtains & bedsteede	11:00:00
a Court Cupboard, 2 Chests, 8 Chaires. 3. Cushions	06:05:00
a paire of andjrons, a Carpet, earthen-ware & Trench^rs	01:00:00
a Feather bed, boulster, 2 flockbeds, 2 boulsters 9 blankets, 3 Ruggs 3. halfe bedsteeds	08:10:00
a Copper. 2. brass Kettles, with other brass things 4. jron pots, a Kettle, Chimny back, 2 paire of Cob jrons, spits & trammell, chaires & .1. paire of Stilliards	12:00:00
Given her to dispose of besides these things	100:00:00
Total is	213:12:00

Anthony Stoddard

Robert Sanderson

Henry Allen

Sworn to by Jonathan Bridgham, November 5, 1672]

Franckes ags^t Stone & Company

John Franckes pl^t ags^t Daniell Stone Caleb Tailo^r & John Ely Defend^ts in an Accion of the case for non paim^t of Seventy one pounds nine shillings & five pence due for Service done by the saide Francks & comp^a in the saide Katch Willing minde & due dammages according to Attachm^t Dat. July the 2^d 1672 . . . the Jurie . . . finde for the pl^t his portlidge bill647 Seventy one pounds nine Shillings five pence & Costs of Court.

Execution issued 6^th of Aug^o 72 for 71^li 9^s 5^d in m^o

[See third case below.]

[65] Baker ags^t Joy

Nathaniell Baker, pl^t ags^t Thomas Joy Defend^t in an of Slander to the Vallue of one hundred pounds for Saying & reporting that the saide Baker had taken a false Oath, (that is to say) that Oath w^ch hee Swore in the case betweene Cap^t James Oliver & m^r John Woodmancy at Octob^r Court last was a false Oath; w^th all due damages according to Attachm^t Dat. July 25^th 1672. . . . The Jurie . . . finde for the pl^t that the Defend^t make an acknowledgm^t this Court in open Court to the Satisfaccion of Bench & Jurie or play to the pl^t ten pounds in mony damage & Costs of Court. The Defend^t appealed from the judgm^t of this Court to the next Court of Assistants. & accordingly the saide Thomas Joy as principle in twenty pounds & Thomas Gill & Joseph Joy as Sureties . . . that the saide Thomas Joy shall prosecute his Appeale . . .

[See above, p. 129.]

Cowell ags^t Woodell

Edward Cowell, pl^t ags^t Gershom Woodell Defend^t according to Attachm^t Dat the 15^o of May 1672. The pl^t in failor of process is nonsuited.

Francks ags^t Ely

John Franckes, pl^t ags^t John Ely Defend^t in an Accion of the case for abusive carriage vnjustly molesting the saide pl^t when hee was about his Lawfull occasions onboard the Catch Willing minde, w^th due dammages according to Attachm^t Dat. July 23^th 1672. . . . The Jurie . . . finde for the Defend^t costs of Court. because not actionable in this Court.

[See third case above.]

Waldren ags^t Smith

William Waldren, administrato^r to the Estate of Oliver Dancomb ags^t pl^t X^topher Smith Defend^t in an accion of the case for not giving an acco^t of the saide Duncomb’s third part of a deck^t Shallop or barque burden about ten or twelve tunns whereof hee the saide Smith was ma^r & alsoe a third part of the Cargoe Shipped on her of the saide Duncomb’s & committed to yo^r trust to the Vallue of Eighty pounds or thereabouts in mony. [66] And for not delivering the produce thereof to the pl^t though lawfully demanded, & all due dammages according to attachm^t Dat. July 6^th 1672. . . . The Jurie . . . finde for the Defend^t costs of Court w^ch was four shillings sixpence.

Execution issued Aug^o 10^th 72 for 4^s 6^d m^o

[See following case.]

Waldren ags^t Smith

William Waldren, pl^t ags^t X^topher Smith Defend^t in an Accion of the case for not giving an acco^t of the saide W^m Waldren’s third part of a Deck Shallop or barque burden about ten or twelve tunns whereof the saide Smith was Ma^r & alsoe an acco^t of the third part of the Cargoe Shipped on her of the saide Waldren’s & committed to the saide Smith’s trust to the Vallue of Eighty pounds or thereabouts in mony & for not delivering the produce thereof to the plaint. though lawfully demanded & all other due dammage according to attachm^t Dat. July 6^th 1672. . . . The Jurie . . . finde for the Defend^t Costs of Court being ten Shillings & eight pence.

Execution issued Aug^o 10^th 72 for 10^s 8^d m^o

[The date of this case is July 30, 1672. The unnamed decked shallop or barque, owned in equal thirds by William Waldren, Oliver Dancomb, and Christopher Smith, with the last named as master, sailed from Boston in April and again in August, 1671, on trading voyages to the Bay of Fundy, with the following cargoes (S. F. 1194.47, 48):

Sold Christopher Smith & Company ye 13^o March: 1671		li s d
61½ yd^s of yd & ¹/₁₆ broad fine blew Cotten at 2/10: per yd		08:14:03
30 yds of Steele blew Duffalls at 5/6 per yd		08:05:00
2. p^s of red Stammells. cont^a 19. & 18: yds. is. 37 yds at. 6/9. per yd		12:09:09
l^li ½ of Copper lace at 18^s per^li		01:07:00
1 barrell of pouder		05:10:00
l^c of goose Shot. 28^s 1 dozⁿ of Sword blades at: 3^s		03:04:00
	per p^s/36^s
2 dozⁿ of Hatchets at: 2^s per p^s		02:08:00
4 dozⁿ of Flecing knives at 9^s per dozⁿ		01:16:00
1 bar^ll of porke /60^s		03:00:00
3^c of bread at: 20^s per^c		03:00:00
1 Cod line 2^s		00:02:00
64 gall ½ Brandy at 4^s per gall: & filling 8^s		13:06:00
p^d you for to pay for Tobacco 30^s		01:10:00
2 funnells & Lanthorne 5^s ½^ll 18^d [N]ayls ½^ll flintts 18^d		00:07:03
6 Kettles . . . [from 8s 2d to 1l 3s 0d each],		04:12:03
To 90^li of Bullets at: 4^d per^li 30^s: 22^li of Shott at: 3^d ½ per^li 6/5 . .		01:16:05
. . . true Coppie . . . Attests Isaac Addington Cler.		£:71:07:11
An Accoumpt of Goods that Oliver Duncomb & William Waldren put aboard a Deck’t Shallop for a Voiadge to the Eastward for theire parts about the Middle of August: 1671		li s d
It: 7 Shirts		01:15:00
It: a peice of Manchester		00:02:06
It: 4 yds ½ of Broad Cloth		02:05:00
It: 20 yrds of Duffells		05:00:00
It: yd & a halfe of blew		00:07:06
It: 18 yds of double Shagg		05:00:00
It: 3 Lardge blanketts		02:14:00
It: 4 Musketts		04:00:00
It: 6: trading gunns		09:00:00
It: 1: pistol		00:10:00
It: Canvas for Sailes		06:08:00
It: 6 hundred of Bread		05:05:00
It: 30 bushells of Com		03:12:06
It: 1 gross of pipes & Candles		00:06:00
It: Vinnegre & oyl & lines & pease		01:06:06
It: Making the Sailes, with hallyards & other things . . .		02:17:00
It: a barrell of Porke		03:05:00
It: 141: gallons’ of liquor or thereabout		15:05:00
It: 1 barrell of Molasses		01:05:00
It: 1 ankor		01:04:00
Paide to m^r Shrimpton for goods’		05:08:00
These goods were Duncombs’ & Waldren’s part		76:16:00

William Waldren

It: More goods of m^r Shrimpton which Christopher Smith should have paide with his owne Estate for his part, but hee paide it out of the Stock’s goods, which I desire the Honoured Court & Jury to	li s d
Consider of	38.06.11
The Totall is	115:02:11

Among the two-score depositions on record in the case, the following sufficiently indicate the incidents of the voyage which led to a dispute among the three partners over the proceeds:

S. F. 1194.18

John Williams aged about 26 yeares, testifieth & witnesseth that hee was Shipped by Christopher Smith upon a Sloope & was to haue for his Service thirty five Shillings a month in Mony, & that hee entred into pay the second day of March, 1671, & went then toward the Eastward, whether they was bound, but in going at S^t John River the saide Christopher Smith & hee disagreed; whereupon Christopher Smith put him ashoare without any wages, but complaining to others that was there, with other Vessells how that hee should make a broken Voiadge, by reason of his absence, thereupon they perswaded him to goe aboard on the Sloope againe, on which they traded with the Indians till that they was willing to return but in returning toward Boston, they staied one night at Kabunkidle & they there disagreed againe, in soe much that Christopher Smith turned him ashoare againe without his pay, & withall told him that hee Should never haue it; But that hee should not bee Left destitute of Succor one Richard Shute came with a Boate & another man & tooke him aboard upon another vessell & desired & perswaded him to goe on board Christopher Smith’s vessell againe; which by theire perswasions was willing & proffered to goe aboard on m^r Smiths’ vessell, but hee would not let him come aboard but told him that hee would Shoote him or bee the death of him if he set his foote upon his Vessell, and the saide John Williams in trading with the jndians Witnesseth that hee tooke for Severall English goods of the jndians forty moose Skinns & upward & about three packs of Beaver each pack conteining five & twenty Skinns alsoe certaine Otter Skinns, certain Martins & certain Musquash skinns & some certain dressed Moose skinns; alsoe the saide John Williams witnesseth, that these English goods was left of those goods they tooke out of Boston as are here underwritten.

Inp^rmis, one peice of red Slammell, halfe a peice of trucking Cloth, part of a peice of blew Cotten, certain jndian Coates made of red Slammell, one barrell of pouder some Shot, some trading knives, some Sword blades & certain gunns about nine or ten in Number, a parcell of Tobacco, some jndian Corn, & some certain Kettles, & the saide John Williams Witnesseth that the abouenamed Christopher Smith sent off his vessell, by George Manning belonging to another vessell, two Otter Skinns & one beaver Skinn & alsoe by one Richard Shute three trading gunns, as tokens to his wife at Boston,

And doe farther testify that as the saide Smith told mee hee & Oliver Duncomb & William Waldren were partn^rs in the abouesaide voiadge & voiadges; I further testify that Smith told mee that the Cargoe in the vessell in that voiadge wherein hee was Master of her & in which Oliver Duncomb dyed, cost at Boston one hundred pound’s & upwards in Mony.

Sworne in Court: 31: 5: 72, as Attests Isaac Addington Cler.

S. F. 1194.17

Alexand^r Waugh aged about 34 yeares, testifieth & saith, that hee did help to put on board of a Deckt Shallop at Boston about the middle of August last, (whereof was Christopher Smith Master) & doe know that many goods were carried in her which were Oliver Duncombs, William Waldrens & the saide Smiths & they were equall partners thereof, & I haue heard them the saide Duncomb & Smith who went the voiadge, say that the saide Cargoe cost one hundred pounds & more in Mony, & I doe know there was received on board the saide Shallop in part of Barter for part of the saide goods Nineteene Moose Skinns of which one was lost, four packs of Beaver, each pack conteining twenty five Skinns & some odde Skinns more, some Otter two small parcells, all these Skinns were brought from Nova Scotia in the saide Shallop, (which was one third part of her the saide Smiths’, & one other third part, the saide Duncombs’ & one other third part the said Waldrens) with which saide Skinns hee the saide Smith & Thomas Wilcot was ordered by Oliver Duncomb to return to Boston but in comming towards Boston by reason of bad weather wee were driven off to Sea for severall dayes, soe that wee knew not where wee were, but finding land againe wee ran ashoare for in the bad weather wee Lost Severall of the Materialls belonging to the Vessell, soe that she was not fit to come to Boston & when she was ashoare wee tooke out those goods that was in her, which were the aforemencioned Skinns & one frying pan, & the greatest part of the Maine Sayle & afterwards the saide Smith set fire on her wilfully & burnt her vpon addiwocket bay withinside of Winskeage Island,648 where wee ran ashoare.

Sworne before me Richard Parker Commission^r the 24: 5: 1672

And addes that hee saw the Boate bulged before she was burnt.

Affirmed in Court upon his former Oath 31^th 5^mo 72

S. F. 1194.44

The Testimony of Edward Naylor aged 30 yeares or thereabouts & Thaddeus Makarty aged thirty three yeares or thereabouts Saith, meating with m^r Naylor on the 21^th of March last past at a place called Muspeeky649 both going on a trading voiadge, wee concluded a partnership in trading next day wee sailed for Machias, where wee had the News of Oliver Duncombs’ death, & alsoe of John Perkins being very Sick, & debilitated of his limbs, from thence wee made what hast wee could to him to Musquash Cove, & found him as aforesaide, wee tooke him onboard m^r Naylors’ Vessell & sometime after wee met Christopher Smith at Johns’ River where saide Smith & Perkins had discourse about what goods saide Perkins had, which Smith pretended an jnterest in, the conclusion betwixt them was, that saide Smith was to pay Perkins his wages & the hire of o^r vessell for eight dayes, & alsoe Perkins’ Diett & attendance, which was seven weeks, the which Smith paide to m^r Naylor & my selfe; the vallue that the mony amounted to, due to us, was to the best of o^r knowledge about twelue or thirteen pounds paide us in Beaver at eight Shillings the pound; further saide Smith paide Perkins, Moose Skinns eleven & some Beaver, till Perkins declared upon Deck that hee was Satisfied for his wages & further saith not.

Sworne in Court . . . Jan^ry 31: 1672 as Attests Isaac Addington

S. F. 1194.31

The Deposicion of Hudson Leverett650 aged 32 yeares or thereabouts.

This Deponant testifieth & saith, that in the month of August last past, I heard m^r William Waldren say hee would bee revenged of that cheating rogue Smith & that hee would spend one hundred pounds but hee would come up with him & m^r Hincks his partner being with us, saide to mee in these words m^r Leverett were it my business I would spend halfe that I was worth, but that I would bee revenged of him & m^r Waldren saide hee would let him rott in goale & that hee would make Dice of his bones & farther Saith not.

Sworne in Court Nov^r 2^d 1672, as attests Isaac Addington Cler.

Smith was granted a review of the cases in the same court in November, 1672. See below, pp. 158, 163–4, 186, 193, 202.]

Fitch ags^t West

Thomas Fitch, pl^t ags^t William West Defend^t in an Accion of the case for carrying away his Serv^t or Apprentice Daniell Battey without his knowledge & contrary to the will & minde of the saide Fitch, the s^d West carrying away they saide Battey in the year 1668, whereby the plaintiffe is damnified the summe of fifty pounds or thereabouts for want of his saide Serv^t or Apprentice & other due dammages according to attachm^t dated July 23^th 1672. . . . The Jurie . . . finde for the Defend^t costs of Court. The pl^t appealed from the judgm^t of this Court to the next Court of Assistants, & accordingly the saide Thomas Fitch as principle in fifty pounds & John Lake & James Brading as Sureties in five & twenty pounds apeice acknowledged themselves jointly and severally bound to . . . prosecute his Appeale . . . [67]

Hope Allen, pl^t ags^t John Jennings Defend^t according to Attachm^t Dat. July 19^th 1672. The pl^t withdrew his Accion.

Goulding ags^t Hauthorne

Peter Goulding, Attorney of Zech^r Phillips Assigne of Will^m Phillips pl^t ags^t John Hauthorne Defend^t according to Attachm^t Dat. July 9^th 1672. Noe deputacion of the Constable appearing the process is not allowed.

Stone ags^t Franks

Daniell Stone, Attourny of Joseph Eldridge pl^t ags^t John Francks Defend^t according to Attachm^t Dat. July 11^th 1672. Noe deputacion of the Constable appearing the process is not allowed.

Stone & Comp^a ags^t Franckes

Daniell Stone & Comp^a pl^ts ags^t John Francks Defend^t in an Accion of the case for that the saide Franckes hath not given a true and just acco^t according to his orders given him to proceede a Voiadge to the Barbados, but contrary thereto hath proceeded by which they are damnified in principle about one hundred pounds w^th due dammages according to Attachm^t Dat. July the 10^th 1672. no deputacion of the Constable appearing the process is not allowed.

Stone &^a ags^t Francks

Daniell Stone & Comp^a Owners of the Catch willing minde pl^ts against John Franckes Defend^t in an Accion of the case for witholding a hh^d Rumm w^ch hee received vpon the acco^t of the saide owners in Barbados & all other due dammages according to Attachm^t Dat. July 10^th 1672. . . . The Jury brought . . . finde for the Defend^tcosts of Court.

Williams ags^t Smith

John Williams, pl^t ags^t X^topher Smith Defend^t in an Accion of the case for witholding a Debt of Seven pounds or thereabouts due for wages for his Service performed in the Sloope whereof the saide Smith is Ma^r & due dammages according to Attachm^t Dat. July 20^th 1672 . . . the Jurie . . . finde for the Defend^t costs of Court.

Bonner ags^t Ashton

John Bonner, pl^t ags^t Henry Ashton Defend^t according to Attachm^t Dat. July 19^th 1672 noe deputacion of the Constable appearing the process is not allowed, costs granted the Defend^t twelve Shillings fourpence.

Execution issued Aug^o 5^th 72 for 12^s 4^d [68]

[See third case below.]

Wharton ags^t Hudson &^a

Richard Wharton Ag^t to Rob^t Bendish & Comp^a pl^t ags^t Cap^t W^m Hudson Thomas Joy & Rob^t Owen Defend^ts according to Attachm^t Dat. May 21^th 1672. The pl^t vpon non appearance was non Suited.

Smith ags^t Will^ms

Christopher Smith, pl^t ags^t John Williams Defend^t. The pl^t withdrew his Accion.

Ashton ags^t Bonner

Henry Ashton, pl^t ags^t John Bonner Defend^t in an Accion of the case for that the saide Bonner hath not proceeded on his intended Voiadge w^th the Catch Recovery from the port of Liverpoole to Virginia, nor hath there landed the saide Ashton, neither hath there delivered the goods & Servants Shipped on the saide Catch by the saide Ashton according to bills of Loading & Agreem^t w^th other due dammages according to Attachm^t Dat. July 20^th 1672 . . . the Jurie . . . finde for the pl^t Seventy pounds mony dammage & costs of Court w^ch was fifty five Shillings.

Execution issued Aug^o 5^th 72 for 72^li 15^s 0^d

[Another case growing out of the voyage of the ketch Recovery, John Bonner master, the story of which is told in connection with the case of Peckv. Bonner (above pp. 31–36). Ashton was a young merchant of Liverpool. In November, 1671, he shipped a cargo of dry goods and provisions and a parcel of twelve servants for Virginia on the Recovery, and took passage on the vessel himself. According to the testimony of John Ireland, a seaman on the Recovery (S. F. 1341.36), one servant ran away at Liverpool, three more at the Isle of Man and one at Dublin, “beeing all of them discontented for want of victuall” (testified Francis Siddell, one of Lawton’s servants on the Recovery, S. F. 1341.32); “nor was it without reason . . . for there was great want of victualls for the passeng^ts till wee came to Dublin.” Instead of sailing to Virginia as agreed, Captain Bonner took the Recovery to Fayal, where Ashton shipped some wine. The bill of lading follows (S. F. 1341.24):

Shipped by the grace of God in good order and wel-condicioned by me Henry Ashton of Liver poole in and upon the good Catch called the Recovery of Boston in New England whereof is master under God for this present voyadge John Bonner. And now riding att Anchor in the Rode of Fiall and by Gods Grace bound for Virginia, to say, one pipe four barrels of wine being marked and numbred as in the margent [pipe R. L., barrells H. A], and are to be dilivered in the like good order and well condicioned at the aforesaide port of Virginia. (the dangers of the seas only Excepted) unto Henry Ashton or to his assignes, hee or they paying freight for the saide goods at forty Shillings per Tunn with primage and avarage accustomed, in wittnes whereof the master of the saide Catch hath affirmed to Three bills of loading all of this tenour and date, the one of which three bills being accomplished the other two to stand voyd.

And so god send the good Catch to her desired port in safety. Amen.

Dated in Fiall y^e 15^th Aprill 1672.

Vera Copia. Thos. Danforth. Cl.

From Fayal the Recovery proceeded to Boston, arriving May 25, 1672. Ashton was now short five servants, and much of his cargo. Ireland testified that the malt and cheese “seemed to be damnified the one beeing rotten the other weeuell eaten & musty by reason of the length of tyme wee were on the voyage beeing about the space of seuen months & also a Caske of dry goods belonging to said Ashton was wett in the hold as this deponent aprehends by stowing beeife & wine vpon it” (S. F. 1341.36).

Three days after landing, according to three witnesses (S. F. 1341.34 35), Ashton and Bonner made an agreement by which the latter was to deliver to Ashton his seven servants, 4 tons of goods, and about 54l in satisfaction for his damages. This agreement was not kept, and Ashton drew up the following bill of damages (S. F. 1341.28):

An Accompt & Estim[ate of the] Damage Henry Ashton hath [torn] Susteyned by the Ind [torn] worthy acting of John Bonn[torn] the katch Recovery. . .

	li s d
To Fiue men seruants which I shipt on board s^d Catch to be transported to Virginia who by his Neglect run away all amounting to at Least	60:00:00
To Wages for Robert Scofeild & Thomas Hurst whome hee imployed as Cooks Seuen months by Turns	07:00:00
To Bedding that his Seruants Lay in all the voyage	01:00:00
To my Charges and Necessary Expences at all ports where he carried & deteyned mee	10:10:00
To Damage in Cloth & fustians	01:10:00
To Damage in Cheese	01:10:00
To Damage in Mault	10:00:00
To a Cradle Rug	00:06:00
To a bill to Cut Cannes	00:02:00
To Loss of tyme & Markett in Virginia whether I was by agreem^t bound, beeing carried about from one port to another according to m^r Bonners pleasure about the terme of fiue months, beeing from the 14th of Decemb^r to y^e 25^th of May ensueing Damnified at Least	100:00:00
	191:18:00

All which the Said Henry Ashton doth humbly refer to the Honorable Court & Jurie to Judge & Determine.

Henry Ashton

. . True Coppy. . . Attests Isaac Addington Cler.

The action followed, as recorded in the text; but that was by no means the end of this case. See below, p. 167.]

Briganden ags^t Tailor

Sarah Briganden, Attourny of Rob^t Briganden pl^t ags^t Caleb Tailor Defend^t. The pl^t withdrew her Accion.

Norton ags^t Marshall

George Norton, pl^t ags^t Rob^t Marshall Defend^t in an Accion of the case for witholding a Debt of Seventy one pounds or thereabouts, or what shalbee made appear for his quarter part of a Vessell or pincke as by Articles of Agreem^t vnder his hand & Seale, bearing date y^e 2^ond day of Septemb^r 1670 & in Specie according to saide Articles or Covenant w^th all due dammages according to Attachm^t Dat. July 20^th 1672. . . . The Jurie . . . finde for the Defend^t Costs of Court.

[See fourth case below.]

Hudson ags^t Davis

William Hudson, pl^t ags^t Thomas Davis of haverhill Defend^t in an Accion of Debt of Ninety two pounds Seven Shillings nine pence due by bill & due dammages according to Attachm^t Dat. May the 1^st 1672. . . . [69] The Jurie . . . finde for the pl^t Ninety two pounds Seven Shillings nine pence in currant pay w^th the Merchant according to Bill & costs of Court.

Ireland ags^t Bonn^r

John Ireland, pl^t ags^t John Bonner Defend^t in an Accion of the case for refusing to make paim^t of eleven pounds one Shilling due to the saide Ireland for wages as a Seaman on the Catch Recovery of Boston from the 7^th day of Novemb^r An^o 1671 to the thirteenth day of July 1672 at the rate of twenty seven shillings per month & all due dammages according to Attachm^t Dat. July 13^th 1672. . . . The Jurie . . . finde for the pl^t nine pounds two Shillings mony dammage & Costs of Court w^ch was thirty seven Shillings.

Execution issued Aug^o 5^th 72 for 10^li 19^s m^o

[Another case growing out of the voyage of the Recovery. See above, pp. 31–36, 141–142.]

Gibson ags^t Hews

Robert Gibson, pl^t ags^t George Hews Defend^t according to Attachm^t Dat. June 20^th 1672, noe deputacion of the Constable appearing the process is not allowed.

Marshall ags^t Greeneland &^a

Robert Marshall, pl^t ags^t Henry Greeneland Walter Barefoote, & George Norton Defend^ts according to Attachm^t Dat. July 10^th 1672. The pl^t in failor of process was non Suited, & twenty eight Shillings Six pence costs granted the Defend^t.

Execucion issued Aug^o 6^th 72 for 28^s 6^d m^o

[See fourth case above, and next below.]

Robert Marshall pl^t ags^t Henry Greeneland &^a Defend^ts in an Accion of the case for illegal & contrary to Law vexing the saide Marshall without cause of Accion & hindring the pinck Lenham’s going to Sea vnder pretence of high dammage though noe cause soe to doe; w^ch hath beene & is great dammage to the saide Marshall w^th other due dammages according to Attachm^t Dat. July 15^th 1672. . . . The Jurie . . . finde for the Defend^t costs of Court w^ch was fifty two Shillings ten pence.

Execucion issued Aug^o 6^th 72 for 52^s 6^d m^o

Plumb ags^t Parke

John Plumb, pl^t ags^t Deacon Will^m Parcks Defendant, in an Accion of the case vpon Acco^t to the Vallue of thirty six pounds or thereabouts & due damages according to Attachm^t Dat. July 25^th 1672. . . . The Jurie . . . they finde for the Defend^t Costs of Court. [70]

[See below, p. 146.]

Shrimpton ags^t Lake &^a

Samuell Shrimpton, Attourney of Alice Swift Sister & Executrix to the last will & Testam^t of Thom: Miller deceased, pl^t ags^t John Lake & Thomas Blighe Administrators to the saide Miller Defend^ts in an Accion of the case for denying the saide Attourney possession of the houses Lands & goods & monies & other Estate, w^ch saide Thomas Miller died possessed of w^th other due dammages according to Attachm^t Dat. July 25^th 1672. . . . The Jurie . . . finde for the pl^t three hundred pounds dammage in mony, or the Estate in controversy according to Inventory & costs of Court.

Kellond ags^t Hudson

Thomas Kellond, pl^t ags^t Cap^t Will^m Hudson Defend^t according to Attachm^t Dat. July 25^th 1672. noe deputacion of the Constable appearing the process is not allowed.

Joy ags^t Woodmancy

Thomas Joy, pl^t ags^t John Woodmancy, Defend^t according to Attachm^t being continued from the last County Court. The pl^t withdrew his Accion.

Thomas Joy, pl^t ags^t John Woodmancy Defend^t according to Attachm^t being continued from the last County Court. The pl^t withdrew his Accion.

[See above, cases of Woodmancy v. Joy and Baker v. Joy, pp. 45, 64, 101, 103, 129, 134, and second entry below.]

Hougham discharg^d

Osbard Hougham, complained of by Cap^t John Allen for his abusive carriage to him as collector of the Custom’s. M^r Hougham required a Jurie, w^ch was granted & . . . the Jurie . . . finde him not guilty.

Auditt of Woodmancy’s acco^ts

The Court orders & appoints m^r Richard Cooke & Cap^t Thomas Lake to Audit the Acco^ts betweene John Woodmancy & Thom. Joy & to make theire return to this Court.

[See second entry above, and below, p. 149.]

Lincolne sworne sealer for Hingham

Benj^a Lincolne was Sworne Sealer of Weights & measures for the towne of Hingham.

Nicholls discharged from Training

Adam Nicholls, by reason of his age is discharged from ordinary Trainings.

Mills his Licence

John Mills of Brantery had his Licence renewed to keepe a house of publique Entertainm^t & to Sell Beere & wine till April next.

Order to Cap^t Hudson

The Court orders that Cap^t Will^m Hudson send for his Serv^t John Shepard to appear at this Court on thursday or friday next. [71]

[Plumb v. Parke]

The Court admits John Plumb to enter an Accion ags^t Deacon Will^m Parcke sub formā pauperis.

[See above, p. 144.]

Hudson to Freacke

Cap^t Will^m Hudson came into Court & acknowledged a judgm^t ags^t himselfe & Estate to M^r John Freacke for fifty five pounds Seven Shillings & one penny in mony.

Cap^t Will^m Hudson, came into Court & acknowledged a judgm^t ags^t himselfe & Estate to m^r John Freacke for Twenty three pounds four Shillings & ten pence in mony.

Order to Bumsteede

The Court orders that Jeremiah Bumsteede, deliver vp Paul Gilford’s Indenture & his Clothes to the Governo^r

Howard’s Sentance

The Court Sentanceth Will^m Howard to pay ten groats in mony for his Excessive drincking.

George Hethcott for his contemp^t in open Court stands committed.

Dudly’s Freedom

M^r Joseph Dudly, tooke the Oath of Freedom of this Colony.

Several of Hingham made free

Thomas Chubbuck, Thom: Lincolne, Joshua Beale, Benj^a Bate, Sammuell Bate, Onesephirus Marsh, Joseph Beale, all tooke the Oath of Freedom of this Colony. Matthias Bridges of Hingham also tooke the Oath.

Discharge from Training

On Certificate from Cap^t Joshua Hubbard of Hingham: the Court discharged Isaac Pits & Nathan^ll Chubbuck from ordinary Trainings.

On certificate from Cap^t James Oliver the Court discharged Edward Goodwine, Simon Rogers & Abraham Hagborne from ordinary Trainings.

Samm: Hide, Indian, Sentanced

Sammuell Hide, an Indian, convict for breaking into M^r Meades House at Roxberry on y^e 15^th of May 1672, confessed in Court that hee was at M^r Meades that day, & that hee strove w^th saide Meade. The Court Sentanceth him to bee whip^t w^th thirty stripes Severely laide on, & to pay the charge of Witnesses & fees of Court & prison & then is discharged & if hee bee seene in Roxberry after his discharge hee is to bee taken by the Constable & to bee whip^t w^th twenty Stripes.

Jonathan Birch Sentanced

Jonathan Birch, bound over to this Court for his contemptuous carriage to authority of w^ch hee was convict in open Court. The Court Sentanceth him to bee whip’t w^th twenty Stripes or to pay five pounds in mony fine to the County & fees of Court Standing committed till the Sentance bee performed. [72]

Gold Sentanced

Thomas Gold, being accused for Stealing. Owned in Court that hee stole from Elisha Bennett in mony twelve pounds & in clothes to the Vallue of four pounds fifteen Shillings. The Court Sentanceth him to pay to the saide Elisha Bennett, the Summe of fivety pounds five Shillings being that threefold restitucion the Law requireth what is restored being part of the Same & to bee whipt w^th ten Stripes paying fees of Court Standing committed till the Sentance bee performed.

Coweset Indian Sentanced

Cowesett Indian, convict for his abusive carriage to John Bennett, in comming into his house contrary to his minde & demanding drincke there, throwing Severall Stones at the said John Bennett & pulling him by the haire. The Court Sentanceth him to haue his haire cut round close of from his head & to bee whip’t w^th thirty Stripes, paying fees of Court & prison is discharged, & if hee bee founde in Boston after his discharge hee is to bee taken by the Constable & to bee whip’t w^th twenty Stripes.

John Indian Sentanced

John Indian, convict for breaking into the house of Sammuell King of Weimoth. The Court Sentanceth him to haue his haire cut round close of from his head & to bee whip’t w^th thirty Stripes & pay the charge of Constable & witnesses, & paiing fees of Court & prison is discharged. & if hee bee founde in Weimoth after his discharge hee is to bee taken by the Constable & to bee whip’t w^th twenty stripes.

Johnson & More Sentanced

Abigaile Johnson Senio^r & Naomi Moore, convict for giving Entertainm^t to persons drincking in theire houses at vnseasonable times of the night. The Court Sentanceth them, to give in twenty pounds bond apeice for the good behavior & pay fees of Court. Standing committed till the Sent^a bee performed.

Order to Deacon Allen & Drury

The Court orders & appoints Deacon Henry Allen & Heugh Drury to veiw & measure the worke done by Thom Joy for John Woodmancy & to make return thereof to this Court.

Hull peticion answered

In Answer to the peticion of severall of the Towne of Hull w^th reference to the Commission^rs of Hingham. The Court orders that due notice bee given to the s^d Comissioners to appear at Octob^r Court next. to answer theire complaint. [73]

Order about m^r Allen’s estate

In Answer to the motion of the Administrato^r to the Estate of the late Rev^d M^r John Allen of Dedham deceased. The Court orders that the Administrato^rs take care of that part of the Estate, set forth to M^r John Allen the eldest sone to secure the same from dammage & to emprove it for his best advantage till farther Order.

Order about John Shepard

Compl^a being made by Andrew Shepard, concering the State of his brother Joⁿ Shepard Serv^t to Cap^t Will^m Hudson, both ma^r & Serv^t appeared before the magistrates & by consent jointly referred the determinacion of the case to them vpon which The Court orders that saide Cap^t Hudson forthw^th deliver up the saide Serv^t John Shepard to his brother and cloath him w^th one Suite of good Apparrell besides w^t hee already hath to the approbacion of m^r Edward Ting or in failor thereof to pay five pounds in mony.

Harris sentanced

The Court Sentanceth John Harris to pay three pounds to Owen Joanes for his and his wives abuseing of him & Order that the saide Joanes paying to his saide ma^r Harris w^t hee is justly indebted to him bee released from his saide ma^r Service & the Select men of Boston are to provide a meete Service for him.

Execucion issued for 3^li 12^s x^br 1672.

Dyer’s licence

Thomas Dyer of Weimoth had his licence renewed to keepe a house of publique Entertainm^t for the yeare Ensuing.

Woodmancies & Joyes Audit

Deacon Henry Allen, Hugh Drury & Cap^t Will^m Davis were chosen in Court by John Woodmancy & Thomas Joy to overlooke & ajust the Acco^ts presented by the saide Joy ags^t John Woodmancy & all covenants that have beene made between them w^ch the Court allowed of.

[See above, p. 145.]

Hurlo Sentanced

Morto Hurlo, being bound over to this Court for his wounding of an Indian. The Court Sentanceth him (vpon his owning the fact but saide it was accidentall) to pay for the cure & fees of Court.

Order to Thom. Smith concern. Sarah Blacklock

Sarah Blacklock, being brought out of England this yeare by Thomas Smith Ma^r of the Sea Flower & compl^a being made to the Magistrates, that Shee had confessed in the ship she had beene w^th Childe in England by one Henry Saffery a Dutchman, who shee saide was her Sweete heart & that she went w^th Childe fifteen or sixteen weeks & then miscarried of a man childe w^ch her Father’s maide buried privately in his garden w^ch was in Leedes in the County of Yorke, vpon w^ch the Court sent for her & she owned the same in Court. Wherevpon the Court orders that saide Thomas Smith return the saide Sarah Blacklock [74] for England w^th the Records of this Court concerning her & that in the meane time she continue in prison, saide Smith to pay the prison charges. & in case the saide Smith refuse soe to transport her, or to take order for the same the charge for her transportacon as aforesaide is to bee levied by Execucion on the saide Smith’s Estate.

[See above, p. 128, and below, pp. 164–5, 185, 189, 237.]

Mason admonished

Pete Mason, being pursued by fiue & cry vpon suspicion of stealing a horse. Vpon the hearing of the case the Court Sentanceth him to bee admonished in open Court & pay fees of Court. & they leaue the Owner of the horse to his course in Law ags^t him.

Middleton’s Sentance

Will^m Middleton, being bound over to this Court for Speaking words that gaue Suspicion of his being instrumentall in the late fire at Boston; the Court Sentanceth him to give ten pounds bond w^th two Sureties in five pound apeice for the good behavio^r & accordingly the saide Will^m Middleton as principall in ten pounds & John Blake & Arthur Mason as Sureties in five pounds apeice acknowledge themselves jointly & Severally bound to the Treasuro^r of the County of Suffolke on condicion that Will^m Middleton shalbee of good behavior & appeare at the next Court of this County.

Rolffe bound over to Court of Assist.

Edward Rolffe, being committed on Suspicion of his having two wives is bound over to the Court of Assistants & the Court accepts his one bond of one hundred pounds.

[Rolfe was acquitted in the higher court, September 7, 1672, S.F. 1139, printed in Records of the Court of Assistants, iii. 222.]

Atherton’s Sentance

Jonathan Atherton, bound over to this Court for his wounding of an Indian w^th his Sword; w^ch hee owned hee did vpon provocacion given him by the Indian. The Court Sentanceth him to defray all the charges about the cure of saide Indian if it bee not already done & disinable him for wearing a Sword during his continuance in this Colony, or till this Court take farther order. & to pay fees of Court.

Atherton’s discharge of bonds

Vpon due proclamacion made Jonathan Atherton is discharged from his bonds of good behavio^r

Dogget & Nicholls discharge

Vpon like proclamacion. Jonathan Nicholls & Henry Dogget are discharged from theire bonds of good behavior.

Mehetable Sheafe’s Guardian

Mehetable Sheafe, made choice of m^r Thomas Brattle for her Guardian w^ch hee accepted & and the Court allowed of.

Foster’s licence

John Foster, of Dorchester had a licence granted him to retaile Strong waters of his one distilling. & the saide John Foster as principall in five pounds & Hopestill Foster jun^r & Ephraim Searle as Sureties in 50^s apeice acknowledged themselues bound . . . [75]

At a Speciall Court held at Boston August 26^th 1672 called at the Request of Henry Loaton Merchant.

Present

Ri: Bellingham Esq^r Gov^r

John Leverett Esq^r Dep^t Gov^r

Jurie of Trialls Sworne

m^r Simon Linde	X^topher Clarke	Will^m Parcke
James Whetcomb	Anth^o Checkly	John Stebbins
Joseph Dudson	Samm: Scarlett	Thom: Tileston:
Nathan^ll Greene	Augustⁿ Lyndon	Enoch Wiswall

[Lawton v. Bonner]

Henry Loaton plaint. ags^t John Bonner Defend^t in an Accion of the case for that hee the saide Bonner doth withold & vnjustly detaine from him the saide Loaton his part of the whole Effects produce & profit, whither in goods or Servants & an acco^t of a Voiadge or Voiadges made w^th the Catch Recovery for his one and severall other man theire Acco^t w^th him in company from Boston to Virginia & from thence to Barbadoes & from thence back againe to Virginia & from thence for England & alsoe for that the saide Bonner hath neglected & refused as he was master to saile w^th the said Catch from Liverpoole & other places according to the order of the saide Loaton as merchant, according to agreement, but on the contrary the saide Bonner hath made many and vnreasonable delaies; loosing many faire oppertunities of winde & weather; & at last in a wilfull & clandestine manner, ran or went away w^th the aforesaide Catch, from the port of Dublin in Ireland & left him the saide Loaton there behinde contrary to his will & order & finally for that the saide Bonner since his arrivall in New England hath disposed of the saide Loaton’s goods, Chest & wearing apparrell & writings according to the saide Bonner’s will & pleasure, still refuseing to deliver or give him saide Loaton an Acco^t thereof w^th all due dammages according to attachm^t Dat. August 21^th 1672. . . . The Jurie . . . finde for the plaintiffe that the Defendant deliver vnto the plaintiffe his quarter part of the Catch Recovery in good order and repaire w^th one quart^r part of all her appurtenances; and deliver alsoe to the plaintiffe his four Servants. Viz^t Francis Sciddall, Francis Stafford, John Hokesey & James Jarret; and alsoe doe give a true acco^t vpon Oath & the produce thereof of a parcell of Tobacco, porke, Tar & pease which the plaintiffe shipped vpon the saide Catch in Virg^a for Barbados and consigned to the Defendant, as per bill of Loading, and alsoe that the Defendant pay vnto the plaintiffe Fifty pounds in mony for the dammage Susteined in leaving him behinde in Ireland w^th costs of Court. The premisses to bee done & performed by the Defend^t vnto the plaint. within thirty daies next Ensuing or else that the Defendant pay vnto the plaintiffe two hundred twenty eight pounds in mony w^th costs of Court w^ch came to eight pounds fourteen Shillings.

Execucion issued for 236^li 14^s mony Septemb^r 30^th 1672.

[For the voyage of the ketch Recovery, and Henry Lawton’s connection with it, see case of Peck v. Bonner, above, pp. 31–36. The Recovery, John Bonner master, arrived in Boston, May 25, 1672. Lawton, who had been left behind in Dublin, eventually found passage to Boston. His case was tried by a special court consisting of the Governor and two Magistrates, summoned to sit between sessions of the County Court “for the more speedy dispatch of all Causes which shall concern Strangers, who cannot without prejudice, stay to attend the ordinary Courts of Justice” (Act of 1639, in Lawes and Libertyes, 1672 ed., title Courts, sec. 8). At the next session of the General Court, in October, 1672, this act was repealed and it was provided that a stranger could sue an inhabitant “in any of our Courts,” wherever sitting. Whether there was any connection between this case and the repeal does not appear.

Bonner, for want of wherewithal to satisfy this judgment, was committed to Boston jail on October 1, 1672, whence he initiated another counter-suit against Lawton, for which see below, pp. 165–166.] [76]

Loaton cont^a Scarlet

Henry Loaton, Assignee of John Saffine pl^t contra John Scarlett Defend^t The Court not being granted for any Such Accion the process is not allowed.

1 It will be understood that all matter in this type is quoted.

2 Massachusetts Bay Records, ii. 38.

3 Which then included Muddy River (Brookline), Winnisimet (Chelsea), Rumney Marsh (Revere), and what is now Winthrop.

4 The Suffolk County of 1680 included the following towns and cities which were incorporated later than 1680: Bellingham, Medway, Franklin, Wrentham, Foxborough, Walpole, Sharon, Stoughton, Randolph, Canton, Quincy, Cohasset, Dover, Holbrook, Millis, Avon, Plainville, Norwood, Westwood, Wellesley, Norfolk, and Needham. The Hingham of 1680 may have included parts of present-day Abington, Norwell, and Scituate; while the Braintree of that day may have included parts of modern Brockton and Abington. (I am indebted to Albert H. Hall, Esq., for much of this information.)

5 But Cambridge, in Middlesex County, included the land on the right bank of the Charles that later became Brighton and Newton.

6 A Century of Population Growth (Bureau of the Census, 1909), p. 11.

7 Massachusetts Bay Records, i. 169.

8 See our Publications, xviii. 56 n¹.

9 William H. Whitmore, Ed., The Colonial Laws of Massachusetts, Reprinted from the Edition of 1660, with the Supplements to 1672, p. 132 (cited hereafter as Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1660–1672); Whitmore, Ed., The Colonial Laws of Massachusetts, Reprinted from the Edition of 1672, with the Supplements through 1086, p. 21 (cited hereafter as Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686).

10 H. L. Osgood, American Colonies in the Seventeenth Century, i. 190.

11 Norfolk County was entirely distinct from the present Massachusetts county of that name. It was organized in 1643 for the benefit of the recently annexed towns in New Hampshire, and also included Salisbury and Haverhill (Mass. Bay Records, n. 38); Pascataqua County apparently was carved out of Norfolk when the laws were revised (Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1660–1672, p. 144). New Hampshire was organized as a separate Royal Province in January, 1679/80; and on February 4, the General Court of Massachusetts Bay recognized this unwelcome fact by relinquishing the Counties of Norfolk and Pascataqua, and declaring the towns of Salisbury, Amesbury, and Haverhill annexed to Essex County (Mass. Bay Records, v. 264).

12 Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, pp. 218, 221.

13 Osgood, i. 190–191.

14 Osgood, r., pp. 191–192; Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1660–1672, pp. 132–133; Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, pp. 20–21. Several cases involving proceedings in the Cominissioners’ Court are indexed in this book under Cominissioners’ Court, e.g., Golden v. Clements, pp. 13–17.

15 Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, pp. 37–38. See this introduction, Conflict of Laws.

16 Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, pp. 28–29.

17 Possibly the petition of Mrs. Naylor against her notorious husband, referred by the County Court to the Court of Assistants (below, p. 96; and see Michelson v. Browne, p. 103) asked for a divorce. The divorced Whartons appear on p. 914.

18 Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, p. 36. The “Capital Lawes” in this compilation were still those of the Body of Liberties: idolatry, witchcraft, blasphemy, murder, manslaughter, bestiality, sodomy, adultery, man stealing, false witness, and conspiracy, with the addition of rape, cursing or smiting parents, or being a stubborn or rebellious son. The last two never seem to have been enforced, and there were no laws on the statute book for which loss of a “member” or banishment were prescribed. (Banishment was, however, imposed in some cases.) The inclusion of blasphemy among the capital laws makes it difficult to explain why the Suffolk County Court took cognizance of a case of that nature (below, pp. 114–115).

19 Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, p. 34.

20 Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, p. 3.

21 Id., pp. 34, 152.

22 Id., p. 38.

23 Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1660–1672, p. 232; W^rhitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, pp. 206, 212, 272, 288, 294, 313.

24 Woody v. Harrison, pp. 654–655.

25 Patten v. Dyer, p. 215; Patten v. Woody, p. 215; Belcher v. Braintree Selectmen, p. 776.

26 Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, p. 152.

27 See Holowells v. Butler, at p. 1036; Simpson v. Salter, pp. 1040–1041.

28 Patten v. Winsley, at p. 384.

29 Bridgham Estate, pp. 848–849; Holowells v. Butler, at pp. 1033–1034.

30 Below, pp. 788–791.

31 Lechford, Plaine Dealing.

32 Winthrop’s Journal (1908 ed.) ii. 37.

33 The Laws and Liberties of Massachusetts, Reprinted from the 1648 Edition (1929).

34 Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1660–1672, p. 141, title Counsel, Advice.

35 Id., p. 224.

36 Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, p. 211. See also title Attachments, Summons, sec. 3, id., pp. 7–8.

37 Introduction to Proceedings of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1695–1729.

38 See Patten’s power of attorney from England, pp. 377–378; Addington v. Timberlak, p. 242, where Addington was attorney for a Rhode Islander.

39 Batt v. Harris, pp. 539–542. Judge Bond’s introduction mentions a feminine attorney in Maryland, who has been heralded as the first woman attorney at law in America.

40 Below, pp. 1153–1157. For other illustrations of lawyerlike arguments, see Patten v. Dyer, at pp. 373–375; Purkis v. Winder, at p. 1004; Danson v. Eliott, at p. 1090

41 Below, pp. 761, 766.

42 Order about Cornish, pp. 560–561.

43 Hutchinson, Atty, p. 95.

44 Below, pp. 14–15.

45 Below, pp. 295–296.

46 Below, pp. 388–390.

47 Below, pp. 550–554.

48 Below, pp. 563–564.

49 Below, pp. 451–453.

50 Below, pp. 1042–1044.

51 Below, pp. 899–900, 1047.

52 Below, pp. 1170–1171.

53 Below, p. 71. A few years after these volumes terminate, the Boston press began to issue printed forms and blanks for bonds and other legal documents. Broadsides, Ballads, &c., printed in Massachusetts (Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., LXXV), pp. vii, 16. The earliest known copy of a printed bond is dated 1685, and is found in the Massachusetts Archives, XL. 529; the earliest found in the Suffolk Files is dated 1688.

54 History of Massachusetts Bay, i. 323 n.

55 Leverett, p. 312; Palmer, p. 1069; Leverett, p. 1153; Dowden, pp. 890–894.

56 See Ashton v. Gibbs, pp. 347–358; Whetcomb v. Gibbs, p. 512; Gibbs v. Whetcomb, pp. 587–592.

57 Below, p. 186.

58 Bellingham v. Smith, p. 248; Wharton v. Walley, pp. 745–746.

59 In 1686, Andros obliged attorneys to take oath upon admission to the bar. In 1701, a statute required such an oath. Warren, History of the American Bar (1911), pp. 72, 77–78.

60 History of Massachusetts Bay, i. 269–270 n. See also Dictionary of American Biography, ii. 166.

61 Legal Development in Colonial Massachusetts, 1630–1686, p. 144; see also pp. 5, 66 ff.

62 “The English Common Law in the Early American Colonies,” in Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, i. 367 ff. See also R. B. Morris, “Massachusetts and the Common Law: the Declaration of 1646,” American Historical Review, xxxi. 443.

63 Review of “Laws and Liberties of 1648,” in New England Quarterly, iii. 157–158.

64 Hilkey, pp. 66–67.

65 Poore, Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, etc., i. 940.

66 Below, pp. 373–376.

67 Darvall v. Dudson, at p. 366. See also Cooke v. Broughton, at p. 71.

68 Stuart and Ludden, at p. 406; Newcomb at p. 696. Title Man-slaughter in the revisions of 1660 and 1672 covered only killing in self-defense, etc.

69 Introduction to Proceedings of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1695–1729.

70 Scottow v. Shapleigh, at p. 1112.

71 Massachusetts Bay Records, II. 212

72 Below, p. 1105.

73 Mead v. Turner, pp. 36–43. An order of 1650 by the General Court as to this book is quoted by Warren, History of the American Bar, p. 71.

74 See this introduction, Attorneys and Magistrates.

75 Mittimus, pp. 191, 487; supersedeas, pp. 788–791.

76 Below, p. 298; see also for Latin phrases, pp. 533, 534, 536, 769.

77 Below, p. 163.

78 Ashton v. Gibbs, at pp. 347, 350, 351.

79 Patten v. Winsley, pp. 377–384.

80 Douglas Estate, pp. 1104–1105.

81 “King’s Law and Local Custom in Seventeenth-Century New England,” Columbia Law Review, XXXI. 416.

82 Hilkey, p. 68.

83 Earl of Oxford’s Case, 1 Chancery Rep. 1. This reference was suggested by Dean Pound as was also King v. University of Cambridge, 1 Strange 557, 567, where Chief Justice Pratt uses a Biblical illustration as late as 1736: “The objection for want of notice can never be got over. The laws of God and man both give the party an opportunity to make his defence, if he has any. I remember to have heard it observed by a very learned man upon such an occasion, that even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam, before he was called upon to make his defence, Adam (says God) where art thou? Hast thou not eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? And the same question was put to Eve also.” For other English examples, see Warren, History of the American Bar, p. 65 n; Ratcliff’s Case, 3 Coke Rep. 40a, b; Winfield, Chief Sources of English Legal History, p. 146.

84 Below, pp. 203, 309, 535, 892–893, 1116.

85 Below, p. 52.

86 Below, p. 568

87 Below, p. 624.

88 Below, p. 1155

89 Below, pp. 303–304.

90 Below, p. 615

91 Below, pp. 404–408.

92 Below, pp. 1147–1148.

93 Below, at pp. 1034, 1037. The same Biblical passage is unsuccessfully cited in Douglas Est., at 1105, as binding, in accordance with the preamble, in order to fill the gap in title Wills, which gave a decedent’s property to his heirs without defining who they were.

94 On the distinction between this principle of judicial consistency and the modern principle of the binding force of judicial decisions, see Winfield, Chief Sources of English Legal History, pp. 149 f. Some of the passages he cites from the Year-Books, of oral court-room discussion mentioning past cases, resemble the Massachusetts material described below. See also Lewis, “The History of Judicial Precedent,” Law Quarterly Review, xlvi. 341.

95 Below, at pp. 70–71.

96 Below, at pp. 365, 367.

97 Hutchinson v. Blake, pp. 271–274.

98 Below, at p. 714.

99 Below, pp. 797–799.

100 Below, at pp. 654–655.

101 Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, p. 38. See this introduction, Appellate Courts.

102 Peck v. Bonner, pp. 31–36.

103 Ashton v. Gibbs, pp. 347–358.

104 Below, pp. 99–100, 131–133, 201.

105 Clarke v. Nicholls, pp. 5–9, 98–99

106 Dinely v. Steenwick, pp. 167–173, 246–247, 292–293; Dinely, p. 234; Davis v. Dinely, pp. 568–569.

107 Clarke v. Lamb, pp. 1131–1136.

108 Below, pp. 1029–1037.

109 Pincheon v. Collecot, pp. 319–322.

110 Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, p. 9. See Kelly v. Blower, p. 13; Atkinson v. Williams, pp. 53–54; and other entries indexed under Barratry.

111 See this introduction, Attorneys and Magistrates.

112 Cooke v. Broughton, at pp. 70–71. The court nevertheless nullified the deed.

113 Hodges, at p. 190.

114 The same conclusion is stated by Washburn, Sketches of the Judicial History of Massachusetts (1840), p. 48. Goebel observes the same fact in Plymouth Colony and attributes it to the influence of the English county courts. “King’s Law and Local Custom,” Columbia Law Review xxxi 437–438

115 Three different English reporters have been examined for cases in the year 1670–1671. Out of twenty-four cases in 1 T. Raymond 189–218, only three are case; four are assumpsit, one general assumpsit, seven debt, three trespass, four replevin, one covenant, one words (slander). Out of twenty-four cases in 1 Levinz 285–301, only four are case; eight are debt, four assumpsit, two general assumpsit, and there is one each for trespass, ejectment, words (slander), account, trover, and covenant. Out of twenty-four cases beginning 2 Saunders 73, nine are case, a somewhat larger proportion; nine are debt, two ejectment, three assumpsit, and one trover.

116 For example, Leverett v. Ely, p. 4; Greenough v. Hazelden, p. 9; Hutchinson v. Douty, p. 11; Thayre v. Rose, pp. 322–325; Hudson v. George, p. 514.

117 Parker v. Champeroone and Leverett v. Ely.

118 Examples are Bacon v. Gold, p. 12; Oliver v. Woodmancy, p. 17; Cutler v. Hersy, pp. 44–45; Parker v. Corbyn, p. 316; Leverett v. Dowden, p. 882.

119 Sheafe v. Hawkins, pp. 1–3.

120 Anderson v. Cox, pp. 204–205; 287, Gross v. Pearce, p. 275; Clarke v. Clement, p. 636.

121 For example, Bucher v. Bastar, p. 17; Hastings v. Parks, pp. 97–98; Hudson v. Skinner, p. 290; Raynsfords v. Green, p. 853; Leverett v. Fox, p. 935.

122 Hudson v. Hunt, pp. 289–290.

123 Sanders v. Harris, p. 640.

124 Woodcock v. Sutton, p. 773.

125 Brackett v. Clarke, pp. 45–52.

126 Leeds v. Richards, p. 100; Bill v. Wayte, p. 271.

127 Goodman v. Cocke, pp. 200–201.

128 Mosely v. Mason, p. 65.

129 Lidgett v. Collins, pp. 43–44; Smith v. Carrington, p. 155.

130 Sandys v. Locke, pp. 205–209, Hutchinson v. Blake, pp. 271–274, are examples, and others will be found in the Index. See the form of the writ in Wbitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, p. 162.

131 Marsh v. Machee, p. 43; Baker v. Joy, p. 134.

132 Smith v. Cartwright, p. 10.

133 Dudson v. Darvall, pp. 385–387. Actions of defamation: MackDaniel v. Hale, p. 818, and Legg v. Flood, p. 880. Case upon defamation: Barnes v. Harwood, p. 984.

134 MackDaniel v. Hale, p. 818.

135 Below, p. 13.

136 Francks v. Ely, p. 135; Dudson v. Darvall, pp. 385–387.

137 Wbitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, p.

138 Id, P. 7.

139 See Jones v. Crispe, at p. 458.

140 Mass. Perpetual Laws, 1780–1800 (1801), i. 199.

141 No. 27. Reprinted in Whitmore’s Bibliographical Sketch of the Laws of the Massachusetts Colony (1630–1686), p. 39.

142 Massachusetts Bay Records, ii. 219.

143 Sheafe v. Palmer at pp. 829–830; Scottow v. Shapleigh, at pp. 1114–1116; Dudley v. Paige, at p. 1120, called “plea”; Townsend v. Williams, at p. 1127, in Court of Assistants; Cooke v. Oliver, at pp. 1146–1148. A declaration is mentioned in Gibbs v. Whetcomb, at p. 588.

144 Cooke v. Broughton, at p. 68; Cooke v. Oliver, at pp. 1148–1149.

145 Mead v. Turner, at p. 39; Dudley v. Paige, at p. 1120.

146 Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, p. 211.

147 Id., p. 7.

148 Robinson, “Anticipations under the Commonwealth of Changes in the Law,” Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, i. 480.

149 Plumb v. Parke, p. 146.

150 Henchman v. Rock, at p. 197; Giffard v. Leverett, p. 747; Saffin v. Jesson, pp. 774–775; Lynde v. Haughton, p. 1009.

151 Below, pp. 417–420.

152 Porter v. Appleton, pp. 1137–1139.

153 Below, p. 69.

154 Below, pp. 173, 760.

155 Cooke v. Oliver, pp. 1144–1150

156 Parmiter v. Perry, p. 294.

157 Cooke v. Broughton, at p. 73; Clarke v. Nicholls, at p. 79; Willys v. Baker, pp. 1073–1074.

158 Blackstone, Commentaries, iii. 418.

159 Oxenbridge Complaint, p. 437.

160 Sands v. Hutchinson, pp. 460–461.

161 Whaley, p. 1164.

162 Harris v. Edsall, p. 102; Scottow v. Felton, pp. 317–318; Lytherland v. Brown, pp. 500–504; Lytherland v. Veren, p. 529; Fogg v. Williams, pp. 656–660; Hukely to Rawson, pp. 677–678.

163 Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, i. 375.

164 Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, p. 6.

165 Walley v. Waite, pp. 802–803.

166 Below, pp. 139, 657.

167 Richardson and Read, p. 117.

168 Man v. Hews, p. 1058.

169 Bleaze v. Edwards, p. 925.

170 Title Tryals, Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, p. 152.

171 Mead v. Turner, at p. 39.

172 More v. Jones, pp. 156–158.

173 Dudley v. Paige, at pp. 1120–1121; Townsend v. Williams, at p. 1127. See also Sands v. Hutchinson, pp. 460–461, petition for respite of execution.

174 Hutchinson v. Paine, at p. 635.

175 Title Appeal, sec. 2; Snelling, pp. 1103–1104; Townsend v. Williams, at p. 1130.

176 Title Appeal, sec. 2; Jones v. Crispe, at p. 459; Flood v. Legg, at p. 859; Lidgett v. Smith, pp. 876–879; Hill v. Obbinson, at p. 1095; Cooke v. Oliver, at p. 1148.

177 Brattle v. Knight, at p. 799.

178 Hodges, pp. 190–193; Stuart and Ludden, pp. 404–408.

179 Hutchinson, p. 95.

180 Dowden, pp. 890–894.

181 Clarke v. Nicholls, pp. 5–9.

182 Sands v. Hutchinson, pp. 460–461.

183 Starkey, p. 258—abduction; Dobleday, p. 626—lasciviousness; Rigby, p. 940—drinking and wife-beating.

184 Stuart and Ludden, at p. 408—manslaughter. On early Massachusetts criminal trials without right to a jury, see Frankfurter and Corcoran, “Petty Federal Offences etc.,” Harvard Law Review xxxrx. 938–942.

185 In the Court of Assistants; Brattle v. Knight, at p. 799.

186 Kent v. Phillips, pp. 929–930; Savage v. Hutchinson, p. 1039; Maryon v. Wright, pp. 1121–1122; Indicott v. Kent, pp. 1140, 1144.

187 Hutchinson v. Sands, p. 470.

188 Cutler v. Jacob, p. 530.

189 Indicott, p. 1101.

190 Thayer, Preliminary Treatise on Evidence, pp. 130–132.

191 Skinner v. Lowell, at p. 391.

192 Legg v. Flood, pp. 1054–1055.

193 Title Jurors, Juries, sec. 5; Middlecott v. Scotto, pp. 821–822.

194 Batt v. Harris, at p. 540; see the form of the juror’s oath in Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, p. 167.

195 Clarke v. Nicholls, pp. 5–9, 98–99.

196 Bucher v. Bastar, p. 17; Checkly v. Williams, p. 372.

197 Lidgett v. Collins, pp. 43–44.

198 Bellingham Executors v. Smith, pp. 240–241; Middlecott v. Scotto, pp. 821–822.

199 Jones v. Crispe, at p. 459.

200. Hill v. Obbinson, at p. 1095.

201 Jay v. Wharton, pp. 577–578; Winslow v. Bendall, pp. 611–612; Norman v. Skinnar, pp. 803–806; Man v. Wing, p. 1039; Paige v. West, pp. 1080–1083.

202 Hutchinson v. Paine, at p. 536; see title Jurors, Juries, sec. 1, and this introduction, Equity.

203 Gibbs v. Whetcomb, pp. 587–592. The preceding cases leading up to the dispute are Edmunds, p. 486; Waters, pp. 490, 493; Whetcomb v. Gibbs, p. 512.

204 New England Quarterly, v. 812–818.

205 Lawton and Bonner’s Bond, at pp. 180–181, see also Lawton, at p. 304; Jay v. Woodmansey, at p. 577; Cooke v. Oliver, at p. 1150. The statute of May 15, 1672 (Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, p. 201) is not absolutely clear that only a jury in the Court of Assistants could be attainted whereas the verdict of a County Court jury had to be accepted by the bench. Such is the interpretation of Hilkey (Legal Development in Colonial Massachusetts, pp. 79–80), but neither Thayer (Preliminary Treatise on Evidence, p. 173 n) nor Reinsch (in Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, I. 379) speaks of such a limitation. It seems possible that the “unless” clause in the statute of 1672 modifies the whole preceding portion of the sentence and not merely the preceding clause. The statute of September 10, 1684, modifying attaints (Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, p. 319), throws no light on the problem. The three attaints in this book, cited above, were against juries in the Court of Assistants. Unquestionably, the attaint was always tried by a jury of twenty-four in the Court of Assistants.

206 J. H. Wigmore, Treatise on Evidence (2d ed. 1923) i. 108.

207 Title Witnesses, sec. 1, enacted in 1641.

208 Waldren v. Smith, at p. 203; Stoughton v. Bishops, at p. 297; Noakes, pp. 308–310; Hutchinson v. Paine, pp. 530–536; Dowden, pp. 890–894. On the history of the numerical system of counting witnesses, which England was already abandoning, see Wigmore, iv. 300.

209 Golden v. Clements, at p. 15.

210 Title Indians, sec. 10; Prince, p. 181; Penniman, p. 328; Eaton, p. 491.

211 Mason, p. 1013.

212 Newcomb pp. 695–697; Clarke v. Lamb, pp. 1134–1135.

213 Massachusetts Bay Records, iv (1). 27.

214 Below, p. 480.

215 Below, pp. 1030–1031.

216 Waldren v. Smith, pp. 202–204; Joy v. Baker, pp. 393–394; Jay v. Woodmancy, pp. 572–577; Batt v. Welds, pp. 614–617; Lidgett v. Smith, pp. 876–879; Cooke v. Oliver, pp. 1144–1150.

217 Below, p. 169.

218 Clarke v. Holmes, pp. 1079–1080; Cooke v. Oliver, at pp. 1144–1145.

219 Purkis v. Winder, pp. 1002–1005.

220 Stoughton v. Bishops, at p. 299; Waldron v. Marshall, at p. 763.

221 Patten v. Winsley, pp. 377–384; Waldron v. Marshall, pp. 759–764; Proutt v. Scarlett, pp. 792–793; Drurey Fined, pp. 837–841; Holowells v. Butler, pp. 1029–1037; Dudley v. Paige, at pp. 1119–1120

222 Woody v. Harrison, at p. 653; Williams v. Fogg, pp. 685–687.

223 Below, pp. 1145–1146.

224 Wigmore, iii. 330 ff.; Woody v. Harrison, pp. 651–656.

225 Wigmore, ii. 662, citing Massachusetts statute of 1882; Cowell, p. 402; Preist, p. 409; Hemaway and Peggy, p. 555; Cox, p. 643; Boulter, p. 719; Butler, pp. 915–916; Childe, p. 939.

226 Trott, p. 222.

227 Cooke v. Oliver, at pp. 1147–1148.

228 Bennett, p. 786; see Waldron v. Marshall, at p. 763.

229 Roscoe Pound, “Puritanism and the Common Law,” American Law Review, XLV. 825, reprinted in his Spirit of the Common Law. Attacks on Chancery under Cromwell are described by Robinson, “Anticipations under the Commonwealth of Changes in the Law,” Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, i. 470–472.

230 Hutchinson v. Paine, at p. 536, subsequently discussed.

231 Ashton v. Gibbs, at p. 356; Sharp v. Rider, at p. 363; Patten v. Dyer, at p. 375; Jones v. Crispe, at p. 459.

232 Below, p. 71

233 Below, pp. 530–536, especially, p. 534.

234 See below, p. 4 n. The common term today is “chancerizing.”

235 Parker v. Champeroone, p. 4.

236 Below, pp. 882–883.

237 Below, pp. 1079–1080.

238 Frankes v. Rock, at p. 1049; Dudley v. Paige, at pp. 1120–1121.

239 Below, pp 1137–1139.

240 See Ames, “Specialty Contracts and Equitable Defences,” Harvard Law Review, IX. 49.

241 Below, pp. 530–536. See Williams v. Woodbridge, pp. 767–770, where the defendant unsuccessfully asserted that he was compelled by duress to sign the bond; this defense was probably available in an English common-law court. The same case discusses the assignability of bonds, under a statute, title Bills.

242 Stoughton v. Bishops, pp. 294–299.

243 Below, pp. 788–791

244 Below, p. 885.

245 Dowden, at p. 892. Compare Quincy’s Reports, p. 537 and note.

246 Below, p. 629.

247 Hickson and Bedwell, pp. 442–443; Forrest and Julian Knight, p. 1161.

248 Ex parte Warfield, 40 Texas Criminal Reports 413 (1899); Pound, Cases on Equitable Relief against Defamation (2d ed., 1930) 79 n.

249 Belcher’s Bond, p. 809; Spur, p. 810.

250 Michelson v. Browne, p. 103. See also p. 442.

251 Naylor’s Petition, p. 96. See the discussion of Appellate Courts in this introduction.

252 Baker v. Johnson, p. 392.

253 Thayer v. Paine, pp. 563–564; see also Billing v. Rawson, p. 819.

254 Atherton v. Lockwood, pp. 512–513.

255 Davie v. Hall, pp. 875–876.

256 Skinner v. Lowell, pp. 388–392.

257 Greely v. Hall, pp. 988–989.

258 Bromage v. Genning, 1 Roll. R. 368 (1616).

259 Baildon, Select Cases in Chancery, p. xiv.

260 Cokayn v. Hurst (1458), in Baildon, Select Cases in Chancery, No. 143.

261 Below, pp. 65–78.

262 Cutler v. Cutler, p. 881.

263 Aspinwall v. Evans, p. 981.

264 Parke v. Morrise, pp. 463–464. On the affairs of this charitable trust, see Massachusetts Bay Records, iv (ii). 434, 441, 455–458; v. 5, 22

265 Alford v. Endicott, pp. 726–735.

266 Lamb v. Williams, p. 1051.

267 Fowle v. Stevens, p. 854; Aldredge v. Stevens, p. 854; Wilcocks v. Viall, p. 855.

268 Note by Gray in Quincy’s Reports, p. 537; Woodruff, “Chancery in Massachusetts,” Law Quarterly Review, v. 370, reprinted, with additional material, in Boston University Law Review, ix. 168.

269 Massachusetts Bay Records, v. 477–478.

270 Baker v. Joy, p. 134; Bennet v. Gridley, p. 744; Sedgwick v. Rock, pp. 770–771; Burnes v. Harwood, p. 984; Smith v. Cartwright, p. 10; Tay v. Hawkins, p. 688; Griggs v. Chock, p. 1042; Fogg v. Leverett, p. 689.

271 Marsh v. Machee, p. 43; MackDaniel v. Hale, p. 818.

272 Keen v. Wiswall, p. 1039.

273 Legg v. Flood, p. 880.

274 Clarke v. Kent, pp. 908–909.

275 Scottow v. Shapleigh, pp. 1108–1116

276 Smith v. Cartwright, p. 10. Retractions were ordered in the cases cited in notes 1–4, except Bennet v. Gridley, Tay v. Hawkins, and Fogg v. Leverett.

277 Danson v. Ellitt, p. 1123.

278 See the Hindoo’s comment on the English remedy of damages quoted from Kipling by Pound, “Interests of Personality,” Harvard Law Review, xxviii. 446 n.

279 Id., pp. 364, 449.

280 Burn, Ecclesiastical Law (9th ed., 1842) n. 137–138. This reference was supplied by Dean Pound.

281 Finnish Temperance Society v. Raivaaja, 219 Mass. Reports 28 (1914).

282 Rex v. Penny, 1 Lord Raymond 153 (1697).

283 Holdsworth, History of English Law, v. 211.

284 Below, pp. 992–993.

285 See below, p. 228 n.

286 Below, p. 231; see also Sprague, p. 424.

287 Below, pp. 228–229.

288 Below, p. 232.

289 Below, pp. 237–238; see Bellingham v. Smith, p. 248.

290 Commonwealth v. Canter, 269 Mass. Reports 359 (1929), discussed in Harvard Law Review, xliii. 663–664.

291 Pound, Cases on Equitable Relief against Defamation (2d ed., 1930), p. 13 n.

292 Wainwright, p. 225.

293 Below, p. 235.

294 Below, p. 753.

295 Holdsworth, History of English Law, viii. 449–459.

296 Countess of Shrewsbury’s Case, 5 Coke Reports 13. On the purchase of law books, see Sources of Law in this introduction.

297 Milton v. Eliott, p. 3.

298 Clarke v. Harbour, pp. 736–737.

299 Yardley v. Boden, p. 775.

300 Sheafe v. Palmer, pp. 829–830.

301 Woode v. Chantrell, pp. 159–163.

302 Snelling v. Chantrel, p. 166.

303 See Hay, “Death as a Civil Cause of Action in Massachusetts,” Harvard Law Review, vn. 170.

304 Admiralty Commrs. v. The Amerika, 1917 A. C. 38—marine accident; Panama Railroad v. Rock, 266 United States Reports 209 (1924)—accident in the Canal Zone. See the adverse criticism of these decisions in Harvard Law Review, xxx. 742; xxxviii. 499. Negligent death at sea is discussed by Whitelock, “Extra-territorial Marine Torts,” id., xxii. 403.

305 Title Bridges, Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, p. 12, enacted in 1648.

306 Below, p. 160.

307 Below, pp. 404–408.

308 Below, p. 149.

309 Below, p. 644

310 Below, pp. 695–697.

311 Newcomb v. Wardell, p. 800.

312 Lorin, pp. 332–333; Dare, p. 333.

313 Whitwell, p. 258; Gatch, p. 259; Wakefeild, p. 785.

314 See Forms of Action, in this introduction.

315 Crowne v. Sprague, p. 156; Sandford v. Orchard, pp. 669–671; see also Toy v. Howard, p. 130.

316 Harris v. Bridgeham, p. 277.

317 Gilbert v. Obison, pp. 738–742.

318 Scarlett v. Long, Salter v. Manning, p. 584.

319 Below, pp. 759–766.

320 Norman v. Skinnar, pp. 803–806.

321 Acorman v. Valentine, pp. 982–983. For cases involving chattels in New York, see pp. 385–387, 856–857.

322 Skinner v. Lowell, pp. 388–392.

323 Phillips v. Wharton, p. 420.

324 Salter v. Rose, p. 984.

325 Bartholmew v. Ashton, p. 318. See Litigiousness, in this introduction.

326 Norman v. Salter, p. 131; Scottow v. Felton, pp. 317–318.

327 MackDaniel v. Hale, p. 818.

328 Ashton v. Gibbs, pp. 347–358; Edsall v. Johnson, p. 639.

329 Kelly v. Blower, p. 13; Francks v. Ely, p. 135; Dudson v. Darvall, pp. 385–387. Several instances of the same tort are given in Maine Province and Court Records, indexed under Crimes and Torts.

330 Jones v. Neylor, 471.

331 Stanton v. Trott, 242.

332 Keen v.

333 Sweete v. Gibbs, pp. 742–743; Danson v. Eliott, pp. 1086–1092.

334 Title Conveyances, Deeds and Writings, sec. 1, emphasized in Patten v. Winsley, at p. 381.

335 Cooke v. Broughton, at p. 66 (transaction in 1659); Clarke v. Nicholls, p. 99 (in 1673); Mead and Alcock, p. 456 (in 1673/4); Salter v. Checkley, at p. 580 (in 1674/5).

336 Title Conveyances, etc., sec. 2; Clarke v. Nicholls, at p. 99; Rawson v. Billings, at p. 546.

337 Bundy v. Tomlin, pp. 210–211; Glover Estate, at pp. 428–429.

338 J. H. Beale, “The Origin of the System of Recording Deeds in America,” Green Bag, xix. 335.

339 Cutler v. Cutler, p. 881.

340 Below, pp. 860–862.

341 Boseworth v. Morse, pp. 100–101.

342 Hiskett v. Paine, p. 318.

343 Below, p. 567.

344 29 Charles II c. 3, sec. 4 (1677). This did not apply in a colony unless expressly received there by act of assembly or usage. See 25 Geo. II c. 6, sec. 10 (1752).

345 Title Conveyances, Deeds and Writings, sec. 1. “Sale” as used here does not include a contract to sell.

346 Woody v. Harrison, pp. 651–656; Leverett v. Bullis, pp. 860–862.

347 Tower v. Hobart, pp. 507–508; Harrison v. Woddee, p. 528.

348 Cutler v. Jacob, p. 530.

349 Sheffield v. Harrison, p. 529.

350 Order to Joyliffe, p. 755.

351 Walker v. Ellis, p. 823; Addams v. Jay, p. 1052.

352 Sheafe v. Hawkins, pp. 1–3, continued on pp. 275–277, 564–565, 684, 705–706; Deane v. Gibbs, p. 725; Allen v. Emmons, p. 772; Stoughton v. Gilbert, p. 772; Tompson v. Simons, p. 909; Sheafe v. Salter, p. 1085.

353 Smith to Jones, p. 1026.

354 Hudson v. Daniel, p. 776.

355 Hill v. Obbinson, pp. 1094–1095.

356 Below, pp. 579–583.

357 Below, pp. 426–429.

358 Widow Bridgham, pp. 132–133; Governor Bellingham, pp. 230–231; Glover, pp. 428–429; widow Ward, pp. 1032–1033.

359 Patten v. Dyer, at p. 374; Patten v. Winsley, pp. 381–383; Holowells v. Butler, pp. 1029–1037.

360 Phippen Estate, p. 996.

361 Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, pp. 32, 157–158.

362 Statute of Frauds, 29 Charles II c. 3 sec. 5. This did not apply to the colonies, except as they accepted it.

363 Wills Act, 7 William IV & 1 Victoria, c. 26.

364 Title Wills, sec. 3, Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, p. 158. The statute was apparently enacted in this form in 1649, for the intestacy statute of 1641 (see Liberties 81, 82), incorporated in the Laws and Liberties of 1648, pp. 53–54, lacks these provisions, and merely specifies the rule for division among children which also appears in the revisions of 1660 and 1672 and is explained in the text. In England the distribution of personal property was not regulated by statute until 1670.

365 Examples are: Lorine Est., p. 119; George Est., p. 223; Marshall Est., pp. 225–226; Phippen Est., p. 996; Gallop Est., pp. 1015–1016; Clement Est., p. 1017; Winslow Est., p. 1067; Ward Est., pp. 1069–1070; Blackman Est., p. 1165; Clap Est., pp. 1167–1168.

366 It is arguable that the statutory clause, “where there are no Sons, the daughters shall inherit as Copartners,” gave the daughters nothing when there were sons. This would correspond to the division of land only among sons under the English custom of gavellcind, discussed below. But the cases in this book indicate no such discrimination against daughters. Every case cited in the preceding note gives equal portions to all children except the eldest son. To explain this result on the ground that there were only boys in ten families, several of them numerous, would outrage the law of probabilities. Indeed, Clap’s Estate, pp. 1167–1168, expressly mentions a daughter as well as sons. In the Probate Records of Essex County during our period, cases have been noted of daughters sharing with sons (ii. 258, 271, 279, 284–285, 307–308).

367 Andrews, “The Influence of Colonial Conditions as Illustrated in the Connecticut Intestacy Law,” Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, L 431 ff.; Morris, “Massachusetts and the Common Law,” American Historical Review, xxxi. 447–448, referring to Deuteronomy, xxi: 15–17, and questioning some statements of Andrews.

368 Blackstone, Commentaries, n. 79–89, 216.

369 Robinson, “Anticipations under the Commonwealth of Changes in the Law,” Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History, i. 488–490.

370 St. 12 Charles II c. 24 (1660).

371 Poore, Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, etc., i. 933. See also, the Plymouth Charter of 1620, id., i. 926; the Provincial Charter of 1691, id., i. 947; E. P. Cheyney, “The Manor of East Greenwich in the County of Kent,” American Historical Review, xi. 29; V. F. Barnes, “Land Tenure in English Colonial Charters of the Seventeenth Century,” in Essays in Colonial History Presented to Charles M. Andrews, p. 4; Morris, Studies in the History of American Law (1930), pp. 103–120; and the report of the 1695 survey of theroyal manor of East Greenwich in Kimbell, An Account of the Legacies, etc., of the Parish of St. Alphege Greenwich (1816), pp. 183 ff.

372 Macdonald, Select Charters, 1606–1775, p. 10.

373 No. 10 (1641), Whitmore’s Bibliographical Sketch, p. 35; title Lands, free Lands, Colonial Laws, 1672–1786, p. 88.

374 Patten v. Winsley, at p. 381.

375 George Estate, p. 223.

376 Pratt Estate, p. 716.

377 Clarke v. Nicholls, pp. 5–9, 98–99; Clarke v. Lamb, pp. 1131–1136.

378 Simpson v. Salter, pp. 1040–1041.

379 Below, pp. 1064, 1096–1097.

380 Patten v. Dyer, pp. 373–376; Patten v. Winsley, pp. 377–384; Salter v. Checkley, pp. 579–583. See Index for other references.

381 Below, pp. 1029–1037.

382 Below, pp. 1104–1105.

383 Below, pp. 860–862

384 Below, pp. 1131–1136.

385 Below, pp. 821–822.

386 Glover Estate, pp. 426–433; Rawson v. Glover, pp. 472–473, 508–511; Rawson v. Billing, pp. 543–546.

387 Below, pp. 81, 109.

388 Below, p. 95.

389 Hudson v. Smith, pp. 592–594, 833

390 Whipple Estate, p. 939.

391. Chamberlayne Estate, p. 992.

392 Examples are: Bernard Est., p. 267; Curtice Est., p. 960; Smith Est., pp. 991–992; Tay Est., p. 994; Elkins Est., p. 1010.

393 Below, pp. 797–799

394 Rogers v. Rowste, p. 689.

395 Kent v. Smith, p. 128. Frankes v. Smith, p. 690.

396 Deane v. Perry, pp. 724–725

397 Keen v. Oxe, pp. 906–908.

398 A bond to pay a debt is reprinted on p. 171. Other examples are cited in this introduction, Sources of Law. Compare a bond executed in London, partly in Latin, on pp. 1003–1004.

399 Townsend v. Williams, pp. 1125–1126.

400 Examples are: Kellond v. Hudson, pp. 106–107; Richards v. Brackett, p. 107; Ashton v. Bonner, p. 167. On colonial resort to arbitration, see Morris, Studies in the History of American Law, p. 60.

401 Below, pp. 195–200.

402 Our Publications, vm. 150–185.

403 Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, pp. 93–100.

404 Our Publications, viii. 156; Charles M. Hough, Records of Cases in the Vice-Admiralty and Admiralty Courts of New York (1925); F. B. Wiener, “Notes on the Rhode Island Admiralty, 1727–1790,” Harvard Law Review, xlvi. 44; Marguerite Appleton, “Rhode Island’s First Court of Admiralty,” New England Quarterly, v. 148.

405 Below, pp. 250–252.

406 Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, p. 213.

407 Melyn v. Dudson, p. 364; Darvall v. Dudson, pp. 364–369.

408 Below, p. 369

409 See in this introduction, Attorneys and Magistrates, and Litigiousness.

410 Dudson v. Darvall, pp. 385–387.

411 Below, p. 413. Notice the Puritan uncertainty about the “Saint” in the records.

412 White v. Lemoigne, p. 988. Another prize-money suit by a “Griffin” seaman is Jackson v. White, p. 982.

413 White, pp. 994–995.

414 Sheafe v. Palmer, pp. 829–830; Smith v. Rand, pp. 621–624.

415 Flood v. Legg, pp. 858–860; Legg v. Flood, pp. 1054–1055.

416 Sprague v. Collins, pp. 18–20; Lidgett v. Collins, pp. 43–44.

417 Hollett v. Pelton, p. 1077.

418 Warren v. More, p. 824.

419 The William and Thomas, pp. 1068–1069.

420 Woode v. Chantrell, at p. 162.

421 Stuart and Ludden, pp. 407–408.

422 See Litigiousness, in this introduction.

423 Miller v. Risco, pp. 277–285.

424 Waldren v. Smith, pp. 135–139.

425 Davis v. Legg, pp. 504–507.

426 Wharton v. Elson, pp. 661–669

427 Alford v. Endicott, at p. 727

428 The Providence, pp. 250–252.

429 Below, pp. 31–36.

430 Below, pp. 901–903, 1119.

431 Below, pp. 279–280, 1119.

432 Below, pp. 471, 661–669.

433 Below, pp. 134, 858–860.

434 Below, pp. 277–278, 1117–1118.

435 Below, pp. 141–142, 157, 505, 622, 663–664.

436 Waldron v. Henderson, at p. 901.

437 Title Bills, enacted in 1647.

438 See Williams v. Woodbridge, pp. 767–770. However, judgments were not assignable, by title Judgments in the revisions of 1660 and 1672.

439 Examples are Mead v. Turner, pp. 36–43; Sharp v. Rider, pp. 359–363. It is not stated that these instruments were under seal.

440 Mead v. Turner, pp. 36–43.

441 Sharp v. Rider, pp. 359–363; Hunt v. Warren, p. 1170.

442 Rawson v. Cooke, p. 475; Paige v. West, pp. 1080–1083.

443 Wharton v. Elson, pp. 661–669.

444 Briggs v. Giffard, pp. 691–692.

445 Briggs v. Leverett, pp. 617–619.

446 Yeale v. Shoare, p. 326. 8

447 Lidgett v. Foote, p. 774.

448 Deane v. Hubbard, pp. 788–791.

449 Below, pp. 1080–1083.

450 An example is reprinted on p. 14. See Index under Bills and Notes.

451 Whitcomb v. Burnham, p. 21.

452 Jesson v. Bushell, p. 672; see in this introduction, Juries.

453 Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, pp. 120–121; see in this introduction, Equity.

454 Below, pp. 30, 295, 317–318.

455 Below, pp. 79, 1072.

456 See in this introduction, Negotiable Instruments.

457 Examples are found on pp. 47–48, 1137–1138.

458 Title Money, Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, pp. 117–119. See the discussion of money and payment in Maine Province and Court Records, ii. xi.

459 Below, pp. 60–62, 156–158.

460 Below, pp. 359–363, 1052.

461 Below, pp. 1123–1124.

462 Below, pp. 661–669.

463 Below, p. 910.

464 Below, p. 927.

465 See E. G. Baird, “Business Regulation in Colonial Massachusetts (1620–1780),” Dakota Law Review, m. 227.

466 Russell v. Barefoot, pp. 299–300; Snelling’s License, 559–560.

467 Lidgett, p. 117; Marsh, p. 339; Gilbert v. Matson, 796–797; other cases involving this industry are on pp. 313, 413.

468 Jenners Fined, Parkman Fined, p. 311.

469 Waldron v. Marshall, at p. 763.

470 Below, p. 126.

471 Below, p. 412.

472 Stanberry, p. 559.

473 Batt, p. 632.

474 Roberts, p. 602.

475 Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, p. 36.

476 Marshall, p. 86; Barefoote, pp. 86–87.

477 Reade, pp. 114–115.

478 Hannah, pp. 1153–1157.

479 Francis, pp. 555–556.

480 Holleday, p. 782.

481 Synderland, p. 600; Cannon, p. 604.

482 Phips, p. 887.

483 Noakes, pp. 308–310.

484 Knight v. Moulder, p. 274

485 Cittern, p. 189.

486 Baker, p. 939.

487 Langle, p. 959.

488 Gross, pp. 112–113; Robbinson, p. 302.

489 Norman v. Salter, p. 131.

490 Richardson, p. 23; Read, p. 24; Wainwright, p. 265; Butcher, pp. 896–897.

491 Gold, p. 184.

492 Chandler, p. 232

493 Gibbs, p. 304.

494 Meadore, p. 753.

495 Dove, Admonished, p. 785.

496 Title Tobacco, Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686. p. 146

497 Below, pp. 937, 995.

498 Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, p. 233.

499 Hemenway Presented, p. 698; Roberts Admonished, p. 751.

500 Whitmore, p. 206.

501 Below, pp. 90, 92.

502 Below, p. 255

503 Below, pp. 116, 1101; Title Ballast, Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, p. 9.

504 Pray, p. 188; Hutchinson’s Presentment, p. 227.

505 Below, pp. 629, 675.

506 Our Publications, iii. 51 ff.

507 Hoppin, p. 89; Wainwright, p. 265; Chamberlin, p. 266; Wharton, p. 674; Marnel, p. 894. Read (p. 84) was imprisoned at hard labor at the court’s pleasure, but the place of confinement is not mentioned.

508 Smith, pp. 1101–1102.

509 The provisions for sale are too numerous to cite (see Index) and seem to become more frequent toward the end of our period.

510 Atherton, p. 956; Marshcroft, p. 995.

511 Examples are: Chandler Sentenced, p. 112; Decro, p. 938; White, pp. 994–995; Willistone, pp. 1160–1161.

512 Colcord to Thornton, p. 945.

513 Atherton, p. 151; Pitman, p. 890.

514 Mason Admonished, p. 150; Waldron v. Marshall, at p. 763; Waldron v. Bassett, at pp. 764–765; Marshall v. Waldron, at pp. 783–784; Whaley and Ranger, p. 1164; see also this introduction, Negligence.

515 Lincoln Fined, pp. 329–330; Gulliver Sentenced, p. 482; Tappin Fined, pp. 780–781. See Dudson v. Darvall, at p. 387; and the controversy about Waters’s horse and the obstinate Jesson, this introduction, Juries.

516 Tailor Sentenced, p. 88; Keyn’s Sentence, p. 235; Pollard, p. 1163.

517 Carr Sentenced, pp. 556–557.

518 Lawton, pp. 302–304, Curie, pp. 628–629; Barker, p. 886.

519 Hickson, pp. 442–443; Bed well, p. 443; Colcord, p. 943.

520 Below, pp. 84–85.

521 Below, pp. 231, 697, 302.

522 Brewster, etc., p. 843. See also Hawkins, p. 558; Wharton, p. 674; Gibbs, p. 677.

523 Below, p. 151.

524 Below, p. 674.

525 Below, p. 302.

526 For instance, Morton, pp. 521–522; Jinkins and Whitmarsh, p. 1068; Davis, pp. 1098–1099.

527 Below, p. 1157.

528 Below, p. 1100.

529 See topic Indians in index to Whitmore’s Colonial Laws, 1672–1686.

530 James Indian, pp. 112, 119.

531 Coweset Indian, pp. 147–148. John Indian, p. 148, also had a hair-cut.

532 Wickersham Commission’s Report on Lawlessness in Law Enforcement (1931), pp. 108–109.

533 Below, p. 23.

534 Sprague, p. 442; see Robbinson, p. 1101.

535 Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, p. 31; Harris, p. 24; Mason Admonished, p. 150; Ashton V. Gibbs, pp. 347–358; Stevens, p. 913; Toleman, p. 956.

536 Tuder, p. 26; Wiswall, p. 27.

537 Fairebanks, p. 257.

538 Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, pp. 31, 221.

539 Below, p. 350.

540 For instance, Read, p. 88.

541 Below, p. 89.

542 Below, p. 90

543 Below, p. 300.

544 Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, pp. 101–102, 130. See C. L. Powell, “Marriage in Early New England,” New England Quarterly, i. 323.

545 Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, pp. 101, 28.

546 Below, pp. 82, 107–108.

547 Below, p. 221.

548 Below, p. 258.

549 Below, p. 265.

550 Hall, p. 23; Pascoa, p. 108; Bragg, p. 119; Blake and Burrell, pp. 518–519; Cresey, pp. 779–780; Welden, p. 942; Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, pp. 101–102.

551 Below, pp. 720, 811

552 Below, p. 943.

553 Below, p. 943.

554 Below, p. 232.

555 Below, p. 150.

556 Below, p. 1158.

557 Below, pp. 754–755, 837–841.

558 Below, pp. 442–443. See Wharton and Gridley, p. 914; Knight and Forrest, pp. 1023–1024, 1161.

559 Below, pp. 809–810. See under Equity, in this introduction, for modern Parallels.

560 Examples of this frequent offense are: Egerton, p. 22; Wheaton, pp. 23, 80; Middleton, pp. 90–91. Sometimes the public acknowledgment was omitted: Collicott, p. 114; Hall, pp. 23, 119.

On this topic and its relation to common-law marriages, see Powell, in New England Quarterly, i. 323, giving similar cases in Plymouth Colony: H. B. Parkes, “Morals and Law Enforcement in Colonial New England,” id., v. 431; Parkes, “Sexual Morals and the Great Awakening,” id., iii. 133; Maine Province and Court Records, ii. xliii.

561 Below, pp. 82–84, 126, 266.

562 Kent v. Smith, p. 128; Smith, pp. 149–150; Smith v. Kent, pp. 164–165; Smith, pp. 185–186; Blacklock, pp. 189, 237.

563 Below, pp. 185–186, 189. See Carpenter, p. 91.

564 Below, p. 914. See Wharton, p. 674.

565 Wheeler and Peirce, p. 443.

566 Below, p. 941. For other instances of misconduct by wives, see Moxon, p. 94; Veering and Smith, p. 233; Hickson and Bedwell, pp. 442–443; Blake and Burrell, pp. 518–519; Morton, pp. 521–522; Ockerly and Langberry, pp. 604–605; Wharton, p. 674; Gill, p. 941; Forrest and Knight, pp. 113–114, 237, 1023–1024, 1161.

567 Plumm, pp. 125, 185; Sprague, p. 424; Dobleday, p. 626; Jay, p. 697; Messenger and Hews, pp. 912–913; Jinkins and Whitmarsh, p. 1068.

568 Hawkins and Fogg, p. 558

569 Man, p. 807.

570 See under Evidence, in this introduction.

571 Below, pp. 91, 254, 939, 1012.

572 Warro, p. 113; Judkin, pp. 183–184; Mason, p. 185; Rock’s Negro, p. 232; Jasper and Joan, p. 233; Miriam, Morea, p. 809; John Negro, p. 1067.

573 Bradford, History of Plymouth Plantation, (ed. 1912) ii. 309.

574 Fiske, p. 28.

575 Gillam, p. 118; Chamberlin, pp. 253, 594–595; Shippin, p. 917.

576 Below, pp. 256–257; see p. 597.

577 Below, p. 257; see p. 182.

578 Below, pp. 438–439, 441, 487–489, 599, 630, 677, 753, 997.

579 Below, pp. 438–439, 599. See Index for his other cases.

580 Below, p. 487.

581 Title Provoking Evils, Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, p. 234.

582 Matson, p. 753.

583 Below, pp. 677, 997.

584 Below, p. 519.

585 Lopez v. Howe, 259 Federal Reporter, 401 (1919).

586 Below, pp. 86–87; 144–145; Whitmore, Colonial, 1672–1686, p. 14.

587 Chafee, The Inquiring Mind, pp. 110–116. Both prosecutions failed.

588 Platts, p. 645; Evered, p. 868.

589 Order, p. 646

590 Stretton, p. 867; Newcomb, p. 307. See also pp. 307, 598, and Index.

591 Below, pp. 120, 867, 942.

592 Webb, p. 28

593 Below, pp. 305–306.

594 Below, p. 843. Another South Church case is Hill, p. 940. See also Adams, p. 596.

595 Newcombe, pp. 695–697.

596 Carteret v. Petty, 2 Swanston 323 (1675).

597 Title Courts, sec. 8, in Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, p. 37.

598 Id., p. 207.

599 Below, pp. 153, 178–180.

600 Below, p. 624.

601 Whitcomb v. Burnam, p. 10. On the history of foreign attachment, which was derived from the custom of London, see Beale, “The Exercise of Jurisdiction in rem to Compel Payment of a Debt,” Harvard Law Review, xxvii. 107.

602 Warner v. Franklyn, pp. 1055–1056.

603 Below, pp. 27–28.

604 Harding and Tillinghast, p. 519; Hyde, p. 677.

605 Simmons, pp. 808–809.

606 Evered, p. 868.

607 Usher v. Timberlack, pp. 154–155.

608 Usher v. Timberlack, pp. 154–155.

609 Dinely v. Steenwick, pp. 166–173; Keen v. Dafforn, pp. 1123–1124.

610 Hutchinson v. Paine, pp. 530–536; Purkis v. Winder, pp. 1002–1005.

611 Hunt v. Warren, p. 1170.

612 Lamb v. Williams, p. 1051.

613 For instance: More v. Jones, pp. 156–158; Miller v. Risco, pp. 277–285; Snith v. Rand, pp. 621–624; Darvall v. Dudson, pp. 364–369; White v. Lemoigne, p. 988; Davis v. Legg, pp. 504–507.

614 Sweete v. Gibbs, pp. 742–743.

615 Dudson v. Darvall, pp. 385–387. See also Wensley v. Davis, pp. 856–857.

616 Danson v. Ellitt, p. 1123.

617 Below, p. 600.

618 Below, pp. 628–629.

619 Matthews, p. 436; Combes, pp. 436, 440–441; Cann, p. 439.

620 Sharp v. Rider, pp. 359–363.

621 Below, pp. 680–682.

622 Below, p. 1106.

623 Temple Est., pp. 476–477; Price Est., pp. 479–480; Howlet Est., p. 871; Elkins Est., p. 1010.

624 Whitmore, Colonial Laws, 1672–1686, p. 158; Deacon Est., pp. 29–30; Biggleston Est., p. 188.

625 Below, pp. 726–735.

626 Macdonald, Select Charters, 1606–1775, p. 99.

627 Below, pp. 193, 219, 225, 524.

628 Below, pp. 560–561.

629 Danson v. Eliott, pp. 1086–1092.

630 Below, pp. 347–358.

631 Below, pp. 680–682.

632 The earliest example of the verb “chancer” in the New English Dictionary is dated 1798. See earlier examples in the Nation, lxxiv. 12 (N. Y., 1901).

633 Son of Sir John Davie, Bt., and father of John Davie, Harvard, A.B. 1681, who was informed of his succession to the baronetcy when working on his farm in Groton, Connecticut.

634 Height. See New English Dictionary, “Chief,” sb.9.

635 Father of the Captain John Bonner who made the first engraved map of Boston. 5 Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., VI. 134, 318; VII. 370.

636 Lawton, in the case to which this belongs.

637 The frequent mention in this case of Lex Mercatoria refers to a well-known English legal treatise, Consuetudo vel Lex Mercatoria, or The Ancient Law-Merchant, by Gerard Malynes. First published in 1622, this book went through several editions during the seventeenth century. A comparison of Turner’s references in the text shows that he used the latest edition, that of 1656. A popular legal tract, Advice Concerning Bills of Exchange by John Marius, was bound in with this edition. Several of Turner’s references in the text are to the Advice of Marius, and not to the treatise of Malynes.

638 This refers to the common practice of giving bills of exchange in sets of three, only one of which was to be paid; this was to allow for possible losses of one or two bills in transmission.

639 This would have been true of a regular bill of exchange payable at a specified date, but the law required a bill payable “after sight” to be accepted in writing because only thus would the date for payment be made definite on the instrument.

640 On 20 July, 1662, Lord Windsor, Governor of Jamaica, appeared at Barbados in command of a fleet, seeking recruits to settle his own colony. Owing to his royal backing the Barbadian authorities were unable to prevent him from carrying off sundry indented servants and debtors. V. T. Harlow, History of Barbados, p. 139.

641 “If any man be proved, and judged a common barrater, vexing others with unjust, frequent & endles suites, it shall be in the power of the Court, both to reject his cause, and to punish him for his Barratry.” Act of 1641, in The Book of the General Lawes and Libertyes (1660), p. 5.

642 An ancient English form of conveyance, which did not require a deed or a record. The two parties went to the actual piece of land that was to be conveyed, in company with whatever freemen they could collect, and the grantor, after describing the bounds in presence of the witnesses, gave livery and seizen by handing to the grantee a bit of turf from the land, or a stone, twig, or some such symbol.

643 This Checkley (1609–1685) was not the father nor any relation to the Anglican controversialist of the same name—see New England Historical and Genealogical Register, n. 350.

644 Copyist’s error for Sedal, i. e., Schedule; also printed Cedal in this same document. The soft pronunciation of the sch in Schedule still prevails in England.

645 Pages 29 and 30 are wanting.

646 The list of judges is wanting for this session.

647 A corruption of “portage,” which originally meant a seaman’s privilege or space allowed him for goods on his own account. When this mode of recompensing a sailor became obsolete, the word “portage” was used for seamen’s wages. A portage bill means “the register or account of the names and claims for wages, allowances, etc., of the crew of a ship.” A blank “Portage Bill” issued by a Boston stationer about the year 1901 is before me as I write. See New English Dictionary under “Port, sb.¹ 4,” and “Portledge”; the examples there given were furnished by our associate, Albert Matthews.

648 Winscal Point, probably identical with Schoodic Peninsula at the eastward side of Frenchmans Bay, Maine, is shown on the eighteenth-century editions of the English Coast Pilot for that region. See illustrations in our Publications, xxvii. There is a Wonsqueak Harbor on the modem government charts of Schoodic Peninsula.

649 Moosepeak or Moosabec Reach, in eastern Maine.

650 The son of Governor Leverett and father of President Leverett.

651 Beginning at this point the records are in the handwriting of Isaac Addington, Freegrace Bendall having taken his departure for Madeira according to the permission granted by the Court, above, p. 121.

652 “Due for primage 5^s 7^d” in margin.

653 John-a-nokes and John-a-stiles were fictitious names for parties in a legal action.

654 Nominy Creek or River, on the Virginia side of the Potomac. A place at the mouth was made a market town by act of the General Assembly in 1691. Nominy Hall on the Creek was the seat of “King” Carter.

655 Possibly a copyist’s error for “January ye 23th.”

656 The reference is to The Generall Laws and Liberties, 1672, p. 152.

657 See note to Lawton v. Bonner at the special court of August, 1672, above, p. 153.

658 A quotation of the Body of Liberties, incorporated in the Book of the General Laws and Libertyes, 1660 and 1672 editions. It is true that the law of October 8, 1672, changing the rules about strangers’ suits, was not published within a year of its enactment. Colonial Laws of Massachusetts, Reprinted from Edition of 1672, p. 207.

659 The reference is to The Book of the General Lawes and Libertyes, 1660. “For as much as the bounds of townes, and of the lands of particular persons, are carefully to be maintained, & not without great danger to be removed by any, which notwithstanding by deficiency & decay of marks, may at unawares be done, wherby great jealousies of persons, trouble in townes, & incumbrances in Courts doe often arise, which by ane care & meanes might be prevented. It is therefore Ordered by this Court & Authority thereof; That every towne shall sett out their bounds, within twelve months after their bounds are graunted. And that when their bounds are once sett out; once in three yeares three or more persons of a towne, appointed by the Select men, shall appoint with the adjacent townes, to goe the bounds, betwixt their said townes, & renew their marks; which marks shall be a great heape of stone, or a trench of six foot long & two-foot broad, the most ancient towne to give notice, of the time & place of meeting for this perambulation; Which time shall be in the first or second month, upon paine of five pound for every towne that shall neglect the same; provided that the three men appointed for perambulation shall goe in their several quarters, by order of the select men, and at the charge of the several townes.”

660 Deputy-Governor Leverett.

661 Deputy-Governor Leverett.

662 Probably a copyist’s error for Angels. “Having treated of Gold at large, I am now obliged to say something concerning the Gold Weights; which are either Pounds, Marks, Ounces, or Angels. In Europe twenty Angels make one Ounce, though here but sixteen go to an Ounce.” William Bosman, A New and Accurate Description of the Coast of Guinea, London, 1721 (2nd ed.), p. 75. We are indebted to Professor Leo Wiener for this reference.

663 “7. And every person or persons whatsoever, that shall revile the Office or person of Magistrates or Ministers, as is usual with the Quakers, such person or persons shall be severely whipt, or pay the sum of five pounds.” The General Laws and Liberties, 1672, p. 61.

664 The case of Hawkins v. Sheafe, which should follow at this point, will be found on p. 1171, below.

665 Probably “actions,” as in the third line below where “accounts” was corrected to the present reading.

666 The term “father-in-law” here means step-father.

667 Perhaps quoted from Coke, who often uses the maxim, e. g., 4 Reports 47a.

668 Then a part of the “Rehoboth North Purchase” which Thomas Willet and associates purchased of Massassoit’s son Alexander in 1661. A traveller in 1704 “Got to y^e House of old Woodcocks, now Inhabited by one Slack, at Attleberry, w^r we stopt y^e Heat of y^e Day.” 1 Proceedings Massachusetts Historical Society xiii. 250. It was half a day’s journey from Billings’s tavern in Dedham.

669 See Hutchinson v. Blake, above, p. 271.

670 Gap in pagination here, although no pages of the manuscript are missing.

671 Cape Newagen, Maine?

672 New Orange (Albany), or New York.

The Court met according to Adjournmt ye 30th of July 1672.

Present

Grand Jurie Sworne

Jurie of Trialls Sworne

[Wyborn v. Marshall]

[Kent v. Smith]

Lidgett agst Leonard

Woodmancy agst Joy

Carver agst Jennings

Norman agst Long

Davenport agst Wharton

Blaney agst Page

Toy agst Howard

Jennings agst Carver

Checkly agst Shaw

Norman agst Salter

Bunn agst Hearcy

Clark agst Bridgham

Franckes agst Stone & Company

[65] Baker agst Joy

Cowell agst Woodell

Francks agst Ely

Waldren agst Smith

Waldren agst Smith

Fitch agst West

Goulding agst Hauthorne

Stone agst Franks

Stone & Compa agst Franckes

Stone &a agst Francks

Williams agst Smith

Bonner agst Ashton

Wharton agst Hudson &a

Smith agst Willms

Ashton agst Bonner

Briganden agst Tailor

Norton agst Marshall

Hudson agst Davis

Ireland agst Bonnr

Gibson agst Hews

Marshall agst Greeneland &a

Plumb agst Parke

Shrimpton agst Lake &a

Kellond agst Hudson

Joy agst Woodmancy

Hougham dischargd

Auditt of Woodmancy’s accots

Lincolne sworne sealer for Hingham

Nicholls discharged from Training

Mills his Licence

Order to Capt Hudson

[Plumb v. Parke]

Hudson to Freacke

Order to Bumsteede

Howard’s Sentance

Dudly’s Freedom

Discharge from Training

Samm: Hide, Indian, Sentanced

Jonathan Birch Sentanced

Gold Sentanced

Coweset Indian Sentanced

John Indian Sentanced

Johnson & More Sentanced

Order to Deacon Allen & Drury

Hull peticion answered

Order about mr Allen’s estate

Order about John Shepard

Harris sentanced

Dyer’s licence

Woodmancies & Joyes Audit

Hurlo Sentanced

Order to Thom. Smith concern. Sarah Blacklock

Mason admonished

Middleton’s Sentance

Rolffe bound over to Court of Assist.

Atherton’s Sentance

Atherton’s discharge of bonds

Dogget & Nicholls discharge

Mehetable Sheafe’s Guardian

Foster’s licence

Present

The Court met according to Adjournm^t y^e 30^th of July 1672.

Lidgett ags^t Leonard

Woodmancy ags^t Joy

Carver ags^t Jennings

Norman ags^t Long

Davenport ags^t Wharton

Blaney ags^t Page

Toy ags^t Howard

Jennings ags^t Carver

Checkly ags^t Shaw

Norman ags^t Salter

Bunn ags^t Hearcy

Clark ags^t Bridgham

Franckes ags^t Stone & Company

[65] Baker ags^t Joy

Cowell ags^t Woodell

Francks ags^t Ely

Waldren ags^t Smith

Waldren ags^t Smith

Fitch ags^t West

Goulding ags^t Hauthorne

Stone ags^t Franks

Stone & Comp^a ags^t Franckes

Stone &^a ags^t Francks

Williams ags^t Smith

Bonner ags^t Ashton

Wharton ags^t Hudson &^a

Smith ags^t Will^ms

Ashton ags^t Bonner

Briganden ags^t Tailor

Norton ags^t Marshall

Hudson ags^t Davis

Ireland ags^t Bonn^r

Gibson ags^t Hews

Marshall ags^t Greeneland &^a

Plumb ags^t Parke

Shrimpton ags^t Lake &^a

Kellond ags^t Hudson

Joy ags^t Woodmancy

Hougham discharg^d

Auditt of Woodmancy’s acco^ts

Order to Cap^t Hudson

Order about m^r Allen’s estate

Loaton cont^a Scarlet