At a County Court held at Boston October 29th 1672.651

Present

Ri: Bellingham Esq^r Gov^r	Edw. Ting Esq^r Assist.
Joⁿ Leverett Esq^r Dep^t Gov^r	W^m Stoughton Esq^r Assis^t

Grand jury the same with the form^r Court.

Jury of Tryalls Sworne.

Leiv^t John Smith	John Pelton	Nathan^ll Whiting
Joseph Swet	John Willington	Andrew Duing
Benj^a Thurston	Joseph Penniman	John Partridge
Henry Bowen	John Thaxter	John Shaw

[Wharton v. Hudson et al]

Richard Wharton agent to Robert Bendish & Comp^a pl^t against Capt^a William Hudson, Thomas Joy & Robert Owen Defend^ts according to Attachment vpon the acknowledgm^t of judgment the pl^t with drew his Accion.

[Wharton v. Hollingsworth]

Richard Wharton, pl^t ags^t Will^m Hollingsworth Defend^t in an Accion of the case for witholding from him y^e Summe of Fifteen pounds thirteen Shillings & two pence or thereabouts in mony, being the ballance of theire Acco^tswith due dammages according to Attachm^t Dat. this 10^th of 8^br 1672. . . . The jury . . . finde for the pl^t Fifteen pounds nine Shillings & five pence dammages & costs of Court being 20 sh^l

Execucion issued Aprill: 22^d 1674 for 16^li 9^s 5^d

Vsher cont^a Timberlack

John Vsher, attourny of Will^m Coddington pl^t ags^t Will^m Timberlack Defend^t in an Accion of the case for non paiment of Eighty eight pounds in mony due by Agreem^t made with the saide Coddington at Roade jsland bearing date the twentieth day of March, 16⁷¹/₇₂, & all other due dammages according to Attachm^t Dat. October 1, 1672. . . . The Jury . . . finde for the pl^t Sixty eight pounds dammage mony & costs of Court; being 22 sh^l 6^d

Execucion issued Nov^r 6:1672 for 69^li 2s 6^d m^o

Goulding cont^a Down

Peter Goulding attourny of John Figg pl^t ags^t Thomas Down & Susanna his wife, Executrix to the last will & Testam^t of Peter Hubbard deceased, Defend^ts according to Attachm^t The pl^t withdrew his Accion, costs granted the Defend^t 41 sh^l 10^d

Clarke cont^a Weeden

John Clarke, pl^t ags^t Joseph Weeden Defend^t according to Attachm^t Dat. Aug^o 7^th 1672. The pit vpon non appearance was non Suited.

[77] Smith cont^a Carrington

Matthias Smith, plaint. contra Edward Carrington Defend^t in an Accion of the case for not Learning & instructing him fully in the trade of a Turner according as by indenture hee is bound, but Employing him in other Servile work; whereby the saide Mathias is damnified for want of being perfected in the Trade of a Turner to the dammage of twenty pounds or thereabout & other due dammages according to Attachm^t Dated 17^th 8: 1672. . . . The jury . . . founde for the Defend^t costs of Court being 19 sh^l 2^d

Blighe cont^a Seene

Thomas Blighe, plaint. cont^a John Keene adm^r to the Estate of William Oates deceased Defend^t according to Attachm^t Dated Septemb^r 30^th 1672 in failor of process the plaint. was Non Suited.

Stoddard &^a cont^a Rock

Anthony Stoddard, guardian to Thomas Robbinson W^m Bartholmew guardian to James Robbinson & Deacon W^m Parcks guardian to Joseph Robbinson plaints. cont^a Joseph Rock, adm^r to the Estate of M^r John & M^rs Martha Coggan, Executrix to M^r John Coggan Defend^t. This Accion was continued till the next Court by consent of parties.

[See above, p. 109, and below, pp. 200, 217, 241–1

Whetcomb cont^a Goose

James Whetcomb, plaint. cont^a Capt^a William Goose Defend^t in an accion of the case for withholding the Summe of one hundred & forty pounds current mony of New England due by bond under his hand and seale bearing date Janu^r 9^th 1671. with other due dammages according to Attachm^t Dat. Octob^r 24^th 1672. . . . The Jury . . . found for the plaint. one hundred & forty pounds N. England mony due by bond & Costs of Court, being 33 sh^l 4^d

Execucion issued xb^r 19^th 1672 for £141.13:4: mony.

French cont^a Ting

Philip French Attourny of Sammuell & Benjamin Sute Plain^t cont^a Jonathan Ting Defend^t according to Attachm^t Dat. 19^th 8^br 1672. The Plain^twithdrew his Accion.

Idem,

Phillip French, Attourny of Thomas Firman Plain^t cont^a Jonathan Ting Defend^t according to Attachm^t Dat. 8^br 29^th 1672. The plain^t withdrew his Accion.

Crowne cont^a Sprague

Colon^ll William Crowne Plain^t cont^a Jonathan Sprague Defend^t in an accion of the case for his illegall taking & riding his horse without leaue from the saide Collonell sometime in the last august [78] & soe wronging the saide horse, whils’t hee was on the horseback that hee received a great & dangerous wound with a Syth never like to bee thoroughly recovered, whereby the saide Coll: is damnified to the vallue of five pounds & for which offence the law gives treble dammage & other due dammages according to Attachm^t Dat. 7: 8: 1672 . . . the jury . . . founde for the Defend^t Costs of Court, the Magistrates sent the jury out againe & in the interim the plaintiffe withdrew his Accion the parties agreeing severally to beare theire owne charges & the writings to remaine on file.

More cont^a Jones

Thomas More, plaintiffe against William Jones Defend^t in an Accion of the case for non paiment of five hundred twenty & three peices of eight & three quarters in Bilboa due for freight of five hundred twenty three quentalls three quarters of Fish as per bill of Loading appeares & due dammages according to Attachm^t Dated October 22^th 1672 . . . the jury brought in theire Verdict. The saide More having owned in Court the paiment of freight in full vpon gold Acc^t in Bilboa wee finde for the plaintiffe as due vpon plate Acco^t forty nine peeces of eight at eight rialls per peece, six rialls & four pence & costs of Court. William Jones appealed to the next Court of Assistants and the said Jones as principle in twenty four pounds & Capt^a Thomas Savage & m^r Samuell Walker as Sureties in twelve pounds apeice acknowledged themselves . . . bound to . . . prosecute his appeale . . .

[Writ, return, and bond are in S. F. 1172.1. Bill of lading (S. F. 1172.2) follows:

Shipped by the grace of God in good order & well conditioned by William Jones in & vpon the good Ship cald the Supply of Boston whereof is master under God for this present Voiadge Thomas More & now rideing at ankor in the roade of Boston & by God’s grace bound for Bilbo to say five hundred twenty three quentalls & three quarters of Merchantable Fish, it being for the accoumpt of William Jones & company, being marked & Numbred as in the Margent & are to bee delivered in the like good order & well conditioned at the aforesaide port of Bilboa (the danger of the Seas onely excepted) unto M^r William Jones or in his absence unto M^r Richard Acklen or to theire assignes, hee or they paying freight for the said goods, Eight rialls plate per quent. to bee paide in peeces of Eight with primage652 & avarage accustomed. In witness thereof the master or Purser of the saide Ship hath affirmed to three bills of Lading all of this tenour & date, the one of which three bills being accomplished the other two to stand voide And soe God send the good Ship to her desired port in safety. Amen. Dated in Boston y^e 2 August: 1672

The quantity & quality not knowne	Tho: More
Endorsed. Received the 13^th October 1670. . . .

M^r Thomas More owned in Court y^e 30^th 8^br 1672 that hee had received his full freight in consideracion of the within mencioned bill, onely received peices of Eight at nine Rialls whereas hee should have received them at Eight

As Attests Isaac Addington

Richard Way, attorney for Thomas Moore, entered the following “Replication to M^r W^m Jones his Reasons of Appeal” (S. F. 1172.3):

Secondly, whereas y^e Plaint argues yt it was in his Liberty to pay in perue p^es w^ch he p^rsums to affirm Curr^tt money of Spain at 8 Rialls plate p^r peice, but had he don the world wou’d haue seen a designed peice of Fraudulence, For as much as yt is y^e most deceiptfull Coyn in being; And as m^r Jones Urgeth y^e paym^t of Choice waity money, to w^ch y^e defendt^ts answer is, that what money was by him Reced, was but Barely According to obligation at 8 Rialls y^e peice of Eight.

Apparently the appeal was not allowed.]

Waldren cont^a Smith

William Waldren adm^r of or to the Estate of Oliver Duncomb deceased plaintiffe against Christopher Smith Defend^t in an accion of Reveiw of a judgment granted the saide Smith at a County Court held at Boston on the 30^th july last, on a case there tryed & all other due dammages according to Attachm^t Dat: August: 2: 1672 . . . the jury . . . founde for the Defendt costs of Court. [79]

[See next case.]

Waldren cont^a Smith

William Waldren plaint. contra X^topher Smith Defend^t in an Accion of Reveiw according to Attachment Dat. Aug^o 2: 1672 . . . The jury . . . founde for the Defend^t costs of Court.

[See above, p. 135, and below, pp. 163–4. Writs and return for this case are in S. F. 1194, 1–8.]

Calley cont^a Warren

Joseph Calley, plaint. cont^a Humphrey Warren Defend^t in an Accion of the case vpon Accot to the Vallue of Sixty six pounds or thereabouts & due dammages according to Attachment Dat. Octob^r 7^th: 1672. . . . The Jury . . . founde for the Defend^t Costs of Court.

Pratt cont^a Lorings

Timothy Pratt, Attourny of Josiah Cooper adm^r to the Estate of Anthony Cooper & Francis his wife deceased plaint. cont^a Thomas & John Loring, adm^rs to the Estate of Thomas Loring deceased Defend^ts according to Attachm^t Dat. Octob^r 1672. The Accion being called & partly heard the plaintiffe withdrew his Accion.

Spencer cont^a Thomas

Roger Spencer plaint. cont^a Alice Thomas Defend^t according to Attachm^t Dat: Octob. 26^th 1672. The plaint in failor of process was Non Suited.

Jacob cont^a Joy

John Jacob, plaint. cont^a Thomas Joy Defend^t according to Attachmt Dat. Octob^r 23^th 1672. The plaint. withdrew his Accion.

Keene cont^a Blighe

John Keene, plaint. cont^a Thomas Blighe Defend^t in an Accion of the case for that the saide Thomas Blighe doth deteine from the saide Keene & Hannah his wife a Negroe boy by name James of the saide Keen’s & Hanna his wife or to them belonging as a gift or Legacy given to the saide Keen’s wife by William Oates deceased, w^th other due dammages according to Attachm^t Dat: 22: 8: 1672. . . . The Jury . . . founde for the plaint. the Negroe boy & costs of Court or that the Defend^t pay the plaint. thirty pounds in Mony & costs of Court 28^s 4^d

Execucion issued 28^th Nov^r 1672

Calley attourny of Thomas cont^a Spencer

Joseph Calley attourny of Alice Thomas plaint. cont^a Roger Spencer Defend^t according to Attachm^t Dat: Octob^r 1: 1672. The plaint. in failor of process was non Suited.

Hews cont^a Loue

Joshua Hews junio^r pl^t cont^a Richard Love Defend^t according to Attachm^t Dat: Octob^r 10^th 1672. The plaint. withdrew his accion. [80]

Woode cont^a Chantrell

Alexander Wood, plaint. cont^a John Chantrell Defend^t in an Accion of the case for overrunning & sinking of a Fishing Shallop, being at an ankor neere Cape Cod whereby the plaintiffe is damnified to the Vallue of four score pounds or thereabouts in mony & due dammages according to Attachm^t Dated Octob^r 17^th 1672. . . . The Jury . . . founde for the plaint. forty two pounds thirteen Shillings & ten pence in mony dammage & costs of Court, the Defendant appealed to the next Court of Assistants: and the saide John Chantrle as principall in Eighty pounds & James Whetcomb & Nathaniell Davenport as Sureties in forty pounds apeice acknowledged themselvs bound . . . that the saide Chantrell shall prosecute his Appeale from the judgment of this Court at the next Court of Assistants to Effect.

[One September night in 1672 the fishing shallop Hopewell, Alexander Wood master, was lying at anchor off Cape Cod. The men were busy on deck splitting and salting mackerel. A larger vessel bore down upon them suddenly, and ran them under water. The shallop was lost, with two lives and all the gear. The survivors were picked up by the vessel which had run them down, the ketch True Love, John Chantrell master, bound from Barbados to Boston. Captain Chantrell was haled before Deputy-Governor Leverett, whose original record of the examination (S. F. 1163.7) follows:

John Chanterling master of a ketch being brought before me vpon 16.7^br 1672 & Complaind of for Runing aboard a shallop rideing of at Cape Cod & ran the boate downe by reason wherof the boate & fish weare lost & twoe men viz ware drowned & the boats master in Great hazard; the master John Chantry owned the fact but sayth he ordered to looke out & had seven men vpon the decke & being in the evening & fresh wynd could neyther see nor heare until it was to late to prevent it for that he orderd y^e helme alee as soone as he heard any noyse but Could not prevent runing on board so sayth his Company, though thre witneses testifye one of the Company viz sayd they had a boole of punch & so did not mynde it, that person denyeth that he sayde so if he did he forgate it; done about 12. 7^br 1672.

John Chantry as principal in 500^l James wholcome & John mellowes as suertyes in 250^l apeice acknowleg themselves bownd to the treasurer of the Country that John Chantry & his ketches Company being seven men shal apeare at the Co^rt of asistants upon ajounem^t to answer what shalbe aledged ag^t them for the same & abyde the order of the Co^rt done the 16. 7^br 1672 before me John Leuerett dept. Gouerno^r

Criminal action was at once instituted before the Court of Assistants, which on October 8, 1672 (Records of the Courts of Assistants, iii. 224) sentenced the master and the members of his crew to an admonition,

refferring the partjes damified thereby to their legall advantages & that they pay the fees of Court.

As suggested by this Court, Wood entered a civil suit for damages against Chantrell in the County Court, presenting the following bill of damages (S. F. 1163.17):

A true Acco^t of the Vallue of the Shallop Hopewell of Boston lately ran under water being at ankor, in or towards the Evening by John Chanterly his Catch as followeth. Viz^t

The Hull by itselfe	£:10:00:00
To a new Roade poyse: 4^c0:7	£:08:15:00
To the maine Saile foresaile & spretsayle	£:04:10:00
To the Masts & three oares	£:01:10:00
To an ankor	£:01:05:00
To a peece of old Roade & all the rigging	£:03:00:00
To a pump & all her blocks	£:01:05:00
To a Compas, Lanthorn, jron pot. 2. wat^r Caske	£:00:17:00
To a Rudder & jron worke	£:00:06:00
To: 2 Bucket’s, Cann & platter’s	£:00:06:06
Summe is	£:31:14:06
A true acco^t of the Fishing Craft cast away in the saide Shallop under the Command of Alexander Wood following & fish it being his own[e]
To two thirds of 18: bar^lls of Mackarell	£:06:00:00
To two thirds of two barrells of Fish	£:00:13:04
To leads, lines, and other materialls	£:01:16:00
To 2 butts .1. hh^d .6. barrell’s	£:01:13:00
To his Cloathen w^th shirts, bookes, box, bedding &c.	£: 10:00:00
Summe is	£20:02:04
More to loss of time being deprived of the Boate in that time of the yeare when other Boats kild above thirty barrells afterwards; which hee hope to bee considered by the hono^rd Court for his loss of time	£:01:00:00

Besides what is abouesaide the two men that are cast away with the Shallop are Debto^rs for Boat hire & other wages vpon theire generall; which if it should reflect vpon the said woode, it would come to £12: at leaste.

Alexander Wood

Sworne in Court the 30^th: 8: 72. by Alexand^r Wood that this is a just & true acco^t of his dammage susteined by loss of his boate. As attests Isaac Addington Cler.

The testimony of three fishermen (S. F. 1163.6):

. . . The same Evening that the Catch whereof John Chantrell is master ran down the Shallop of Alexand^r Wood it was a Starr Light Evening & faire handsome weather the winde at southwest & wee these Deponants riding at ankor not far of this Boate, often looked out & saw a boate that rode about halfe a quarter of a mile from us very plainely & further say not.

Three others declared that they had met one of Chantrell’s crew ashore, who admitted that “they had not minded it” (the collision) “for they had got a Cup of punch before them” (S. F. 1163.6); but John Crocum, a passenger on the True Love, deposed (S.F. 1163.8) that he had been on deck

when this accident was & six men else . . . & there was noe punch stirring not three hours before in the Catch & that the Master gaue order to haue good looking out boath for the Boates & the Land & they did the best of theire Endeavor & looked out some of one side & some of the other . . .

S. F. 1163.10

Thomas Hatherly aged about 38 yeares of age or thereabout testifieth & saith that hee heard Alexand^r Wood the master of the Shallop that was preserved, saide that hee could lay neither negligence nor carelesness to the Masters charge John Chantrells but the saide Wood saide hee did beleive that as soone as hee heard him call or see the Shallop hee did doe the vtmost of his Endeavo^r to Shun them, but being soe neere hee could not before hee run aboard the shallop & after this sad accident fell out the saide Wood said alsoe there was noe man Living that could take more care & paines to Save theire Lives then hee did & I heard the saide Wood say alsoe they might all haue saved theire lives if they would haue taken hold of the Ropes that was throwne unto them but they were afraide of theire Armes.

Taken vpon oath the 7^th of the 8^th m^o 1672 before mee

Anthony Stoddard Commis^r

True Coppie . . .

Daniel Turrell deposed to the same effect, October 8, 1672 (S. F. 1163.11). Wood’s bill of costs follows (S. F. 1163.16):

Alexand^r Woode plaintiffe against John Chantrell Defend^t his bill of Costs in the saide Accion
For the Attachm^t & bond	£:00:00:10
for Serving the Attachm^t	£:00:01:00
For three Coppies of Evidances from m^r Rawson’s	£00:01:06
for 3 witnesses from hull one day to each	£:00:06:00
for 2 witnesses from Marblehead 3 dayes to each	£:00:12:00
for one witness more 2 dayes	£:00:03:00
for 4 Summonses	£:00:00:08
for 3 witnesses more heere at Boston	£:00:04:06
for Entring the Accion	£:01:00:00
for my owne Attendance four dayes	£:00:06:00
for filing of papers	£ 00:02:06
Allowed I. A.C Summe is	£:02:18:00

Chantrell’s “Reasons of Appeale” (S. F. 1163.4) were presented to the Court of Assistants, February 26, 1672–73, by James Whetcombe, his attorney. He objects to paying the entire damage, “being informed y^t ’tis a Rule in Admiralty that where Losse happeneth not absolutely done by one particuler person every indeviduall man payeth his proportionable parte . . . . The Law Sayth that Dammage as this done shall be left to indifferent men appointed by the Judges, but this was not done.” The accident occurred “through the neglect of the Defend^t in not Vseing w^t meanes he might, haueing both fyre & candle” to give warning, “They seeing me by the bygnesse of my Vessell before I could see them.” And, finally, “Because the jury giveth the full Vallew of the Shallop & goods to the Defend^t who sues neither as master nor Owner of s^d Shallop So that Jn^o of Styles653 might as legally sue as Allexand^r Wood according to the Attachmt.” Signed by James Whetcomb in behalf of John Chantrell. Received “Feb^ry 26^th 1672 about nine oclock in the morning.”

Alexander Wood answered (original signed, S. F. 1163.5), that he sued Chantrell the master because he had no one else to sue—also “y^e Law Saith Page (97) y^t y^e p^rson offending shall pay y^e Damage which Is y^e Maste^r, y^e Law Doth not Say y^e Maste^r and Company.”

This reference was to the Lawes and Liberties of 1672, chapter on Maritime Affairs, sec. 13, which law is quoted correctly. The “indifferent” men to judge the damage was provided by the jury, continues Wood; the night was brightly starlit, and “they minded more a boale of punch then harkening to y^e cry of persons y^t lost there liues.”

It does not appear that the appeal was allowed.]

Peck cont^a Lawton

Thomas Peck, plain^t. cont^a Henry Lawton Defend^t in an Accion of the case for breach of Charter party bearing date 23. day of August 1670. & deteining his quarter part of the Catch therein Specified about thirteene months after the expiracion of the Charter to the greate dammage of the plaint. with other due dammages according to Attachm^t Dat: Septemb^r 3. 1672. . . . The Jury . . . found for the plaint forty five pounds ten shillings in mony dammage & Costs of Court, being 48^s 2^d

Execucion issued Jan^r 29: 1672: for 47^li 18^s 2^d

[See Peck v. Bonner, above, pp. 31–36, notes to Lawton & Bonner’s bond, below, pp. 176–177, and Lawton v. Peck, below, p. 293.]

Smith cont^a Waldren

Christopher Smith, plain^t cont^a William Waldren Defend^t in an accion of the case for non paiment of twenty eight pounds thirteen shillings & four pence half penny or thereabouts, or what shall justly appeare to be due to the saide Smith for one third part of the ballance of an acco^t which acco^t the saide Waldren sued for & the saide Smith took his oath to in Court: 31:5:1672 & due dammages according to Attachm^t Dat. August: 23, 1672. . . . The Jury . . . [81] founde for the plaint on the ballance of acco^ts twenty eight pounds six shillings & eight pence halfe penny being one third of the ballance, the saide plaint being accountable to the partners in fellowship theire parts of the goods in the plaint’s hand as is Specified in the acco^t vpon oath in the four last perticulers & costs of Court which was 22 sh^l

Execucion issued Nov. 30^th 72 for £:29. 8:8:½.

[See next case.]

Smith cont^a Waldren

Christopher Smith, plaint. cont^a William Waldren adm^r to the Estate of Oliver Duncombe deceased Defend^t in an Accion of the case for non paiment of twenty eight pounds thirteen shillings & four pence halfe penny or thereabouts or what shall justly appeare to bee due to the saide Smith for one third part of the ballonce of an account; which Account the saide Waldren Sued for & the saide Smith tooke his oath to in Court 31^th day of fifth month 1672 & due dammages according to Attachm^t Dat. y^e 23^th day of August. 1672. . . . The Jury . . . founde for the plaint. on the ballance of Acco^ts twenty eight pounds six shillings & eight pence halfe penny being one third of the ballance, the saide plaint. being accountable to the partn^rs in fellowship theire parts of the goods in the plaint’s hand as is specified in the acco^t vpon Oathe in the four last perticulers & Costs of Court which was 27sh^l 2^d

Execucion issued Nov^r 30:1672 for £29:13: 9:½.

[See above, pp. 135, 158, 163, and below, pp. 186, 193, 202.]

Smith cont^a Kent

Thomas Smith, plaint. cont^a William Kent Defend^t in an Accion of Reveiw of a judgment of nine pounds six Shillings & eight pence obteined by the saide Kent ags^t the saide Smith at a County Court held at Boston in july last past & due dammages according to Attachment Dat. October 24^th 1672. . . . The Jury . . . founde for the Defendant costs of Court. The plaintiffe appealed from this judgement to the next Court of Assistants & the saide Tho: Smith as principle in Eighteen pounds & M^r Peter Lidgett & M^r Tho: Deane as Sureties in nine pounds apeice acknowledged themselves bound . . . that s^d Tho: Smith shall prosecute his appeale. . . .

[The case of Sarah Blacklock again. See Kent v. Smith, above, p. 128. Smith’s appeal (S. F. 1164) follows:

Tho Smith his reasons of Appeale from the judgement of the County Court held in Boston Octob^r 29: 1672

Inp^r The Plaintife did giue vp his intrest in the person of his seruant for the Consideration of eight pounds in mony paid to the Plaintife by M^r W^m Kent, & the said kent tooke her by his owne choyce & her Consent freely without any consideration of any other ingagements & in full performance of her former Indentures betwene her & her Said Master Smith, which is proued by Sarah Black-lock her testimony owned by Said Kent in Court 31: 8^mo 1672 therefore the Plaintife humbly conceiues that the defendant had his full Bargaine

2^ly The plaintife dos not refuse but is redy to doe anything legally required of him, but knows nothing on his part (tell better informed) to bee further done, as the now defendant proues by his acknowledgment to his seruants depossition

3: the present Defendant ownes the person, namely Sarah Blacklock to bee his servant in his first Attachment, but sayeth the said seruant was never maid ouer according to Law by the present Plaintife, which Law the Plaintife knoweth not for want of Direction, but that the person in Controversey put herselfe an Apprentice to the present Defendant is euidente; as witnes M^r William Kents acknowledgement in open Court the thirty first of octob^r one thousand six hundred & seuenty two

Thomas Norman Attumey of and in the behalfe of Tho: Smith

It does not appear that the appeal was allowed or prosecuted.

For the order to Thomas Smith to deport Sarah Blacklock, see above, p. 149; for subsequent actions of that versatile wench, see below, pp. 186, 189, 237.]

Bonner cont^a Lawton

John Bonner, plaint. cont^a Henry Lawton Defend^t in an accion of reveiw according to Attachm^t Dat. 24^th Octob^r 1672. The plaint. withdrew his Accion. [82]

Bonner cont^a Lawton

John Bonner, plaint. contr^a Henry Lawton Defend^t for wages according to Attachm^t Dat. Septemb^r 21^th 1672. The plaint. withdrew his Accion.

Lawton cont^a Bonner

Henry Lawton, plaint. cont^a John Bonner Defendt according to Attachmt Dat: Septemb^t 26^th 1672. The plaint. withdrew his Accion.

Bonner cont^a Ireland

John Bonner, plaint. conta^a John Ireland Defendt according to Attachment. Dat. August: 3: 1672. The plaint. withdrew his Accion.

Bonner cont^a Lawton

John Bonner, plaint. conta^a Henry Lawton Defend^t for an accot According to Attachm^t Dat. Septemb^r 3: 1672. The Plaint. withdrew his accion.

[A part of the series of Ketch Recovery cases; a consequence of Lawton v. Bonner, above, pp. 152–3. These actions were withdrawn in consequence of the agreement recorded below, pp. 176–7.]

Anderson cont^a. Cox

John Anderson, plaint. cont^a Robert Cox Defend^t according to Attachmt Dat. Octobt 23^th 1672. The plaint. on non appearance was Non Suited.

Snelling cont^a Chantrel

Sarah Snelling plaint. cont^a John Chantrel Defend^t in an accion of the case for overrunning & sinking of the Boate in which the saide Snelling was; the saide Boate being at an anchor neere Cape Cod; whereby the saide Snelling not onely lost his life but alsoe his Fish & other Trade hee had aboard, whereby the saide Sarah Snelling (& her children) being but one handed wilbee forced to rely vpon the Towne for Maintenance & all due dammages according to Attachm^t Dat. 24^th 8: 1672. . . . The Jury . . . founde for the Defendant costs of Court.

[Cf. Wood v. Chantrell, above, pp. 159–163.]

Goulding cont^a Hauthorne

Peter Goulding Attourny of Zechariah Phillips assigne of William Phillips plaint. cont^a John Hauthorne Defend^t according to Attachm^t Dat. August 9^th 1672. The plaint. in failor of process was non Suited.

Hudson cont^a Shepard

Nathaniell Hudson plaint. cont^a Andrew Shepard, Defend^t. The plaint. vpon non appearance was Non Suited.

Bonner cont^a Ashton

John Bonner, plaint cont^a Henry Ashton Defend^t on a Reveiw according to Attachm^t Dat. August 3^d 1672. The plaint. withdrew his Accion. [83]

Bonner contr^a Ashton

John Bonner plaint cont^a Henry Ashton Defend^t according to Attachm^t Dat. Septemb^r 2:1672 The plaint. withdrew his accion.

[For the previous history of this case, see Ashton v. Bonner, pp. 141–2. These two actions for review were withdrawn in consequence of an arbitral agreement not here recorded, but the nature of which is indicated by the following arbitral award, dated January 20, 1672/73 (S. F. 1341.26):

Whereas per an Instrument from the County Court dated the 29^th October 1672 was referred to us John Joyliffe Peter Lidget & Thomas Deane all such differences as was between John Bonner & Henry Ashton as is more fully expressed by saide Instrument of Court reference thereto being had may appeare: We having heard read & considered the whole difference between them, & also the tryall at Law in a case at a County Court held at Boston the 30^th July last doe Award as followeth. Viz^t That soe much as was recovered by saide Ashton at saide Court ag[s]^t saide Bonner bee returned to saide Bonner being Seventy pounds damage & four pounds Seventeen shillings charges with serving the Execucion; Also wee Award s^d Ashton to pay unto saide Bonner in mony thirteen pounds Sixteen shillings & four pence being the full ballance of the accoump^t between s^d Ashton & Bonner, all to be returned & paide within ten dayes after the date hereof: Further wee Award that saide Ashton shall Satisfy m^r John Williamson for a Wagoner which saide Bonner received & Ashton charrgeth him on accompt, for wee having considered saide Ashton for the same in this Award & allowed him for it thirty shillings: And Likewise wee Award that saide Ashton shall pay ten shillings for charges of the Arbitration spent where wee met & that saide Bonner & Ashton or his Security on his behalfe shall at the performance hereof giue Legall discharges each to other: And this wee giue as o^r Award for a full & finall determination & issue of all differences between them committed to us in the case. In testimony whereof wee haue hereunto put o^r hands & Seales the 20^th day of Janu^ry 1672

Owned in Court by the Defend^t	John Joyliffe & a Seal
The first of August 1673	Peter Lidget & a Seal
as Attests F B C	Tho: Deane & a Seal

The award was not accepted by Bonner, who was sued by Ashton for non-performance of his bond, in July, 1673. See below, p. 292.]

Dinely cont^a Steenwick

Fathergon Dinely adm^r to the Estate of John Dinely late of Boston deceased plaint. against the goods Debts or estate of Cornelius Steenwick, in the hands of Capt^a William Davis, or wherever else it may bee founde, the saide Capt^a Davis being Attourny to the saide Steenwick Defend^t in an Accon of Reveiw of a judgm^t entred the last Court of Assistants in March last past, but the saide Accion was tried at the Court of Assistants in September last past; wherein saide Capt^a Davis was as Attourny to saide Cornelius Steenwick plaint. against the Estate of saide John Dinely deceased; which is greatly to the dammage of the plaint. & other due dammages according to Attachm^t Dat. August 29^th 1672. . . . The jury findes for the plaint. that the Defendant shall deliver up to the plaintiffe whatever was Levied by Execucion which was the Estate of John Dinely & now in the hands of Capt^a William Davis attourny to Cornelius Steenwick or to pay the plaintiffe two hundred pounds in Mony & Costs of Court. The Defendant appealed to the next Court of Assistants, & the saide Capt^a William Davis as principall in four hundred pounds & M^r Nicholas Page & John Vsher as Sureties in two hundred pounds apeice acknowledged themselves in open Court jointly & severally bound to . . . prosecute his appeale . . .

[Cornelis Steenwyck, the defendant, was the owner of Fordham Manor. New York, and rated the second wealthiest burgher of New Amsterdam. He was at this time a member of the Governor’s Council during the brief restoration of Dutch rule that came with the third Anglo-Dutch war, John Dinely was a Boston shipmaster who traded on his own account between Boston, Virginia, and the West Indies. He died in Virginia (S. F. 1290.22), or, according to another account, in Nevis, in 1669, owing Steenwyck a debt of 1696 guilders, 16 stivers. This case arose from an effort of Dinely’s brother and executor, Fathergon Dinely, to evade payment of the debt.

Some of the evidence, endorsed “3 Certificates from New York” (S. F. 1290.20), follows:

Theis may testify all whom it may concerne That Nicolas Bayard of this Citty did this day make oath before mee y^t hee was witnes to a certaine Bill bearing date the ⁵/₁₅ day of July 1663 made by John Dinely to m^r Cornelius Stenwicke, Majo^r of this Citty and that his name being by some accident blotted therein hee hath likewise certified the same on the Back Side vnder his hand Giuen vnder my hand at Fort James in New yorke this 10^th day of August 1670

Francis Louelace

This is a true Coppie as Attests Freegrace Bendall Cl^r

S. F. 1290.19

From Nomany654 In evarith655 23^th 1668

Hon^d Freind

M^r Stenwick

Sir: I receiued yo^r Letter per m^r Edsall I returne y^w many thankes for yo^r kind lines to mee: Tobbacco falls short with mee this yeere by y^e reason of my going to Barbadoes otherwise I would haue sent you some tobbacco this yeere, Sir I confess it is time y^t it were paid But if please God to Spare mee my life I will come to New York the next October and pay all my Engagm^ts honestly For I haue got mee a vessell w^ch will bee very necessary for mee to performe what I now write vnto y^w. Not else at p^rsent but my Service p^rsented to y^w and yo^r Lady I rem yo^r Serv^t to Comand

John Dinely

Superscribed For his hon^d

Freind m^r Corn^ell Stenwick

at New Yorke Merchant these p^rsent

. . . True Coppie as attests FreeGrace Bendall Cler

S. F. 1290.28

Samuell Edsall aged about Thirty Seaven yeeres maketh oath that being shewne a certaine obligation from John Dinely of Boston made to m^r Cornelius Steenwick where unto is subscribed the name of John Dinely. hee this depon^et vpon seu^rall occasions knew the hand writing of the said Dinely Exceeding well and Declareth that this was his hand. Moreouer being imployed by m^r Stenwick vpon a voyage hee tooke into Virginia to Demand the debt of John Dinely and to offer him time of paym^t after the Bond was Due as at one two or three paym^t if hee could not Doe it at one or two Hee the Said Dinely did then acknowledge the debt to this depon^t& said, I am now bound to the Barbadoes and if m^r Steerman shall arriue here before I goe I will Endeauo^r imediatly to send part of the debt And if it should please god hee should returne backe to Virginia from Barbadoes hee designes his next voyage to New yorke. where hee would comply with m^r Stenwick for his Obligation in the whole but he neu^r returned backe This Deponent further Saith y^t hee supposeth the said John Dinely Spake as hee thought & Did intend hee Expecting to receiue mony of m^r Steerman who was his wiues father in lawe for her portion And further Saith not this depon^t

Sworne before mee in New york this 20^th day of May 1671

Mathias Nicolls Secre^t

True Coppie . . . FreeGrace Bendall Cler.

S. F. 1290.29

Henry Puttifer Aged about thirty fiue years makes Oath y^t John Dinely of Boston & the deponent went together in one vessell fiue seuerall tymes betwene Virginia & this place, that although he was not a witnesse to the Obligacion made by y^e Said Dinely to M^r Cornelius Stenwick, nor did he see him Set his hand therevnto yet he Knew the handwriteing of Jn^o Dinely aforementioned very well & hauing Seene his hand to the Said Obligacion that is to Say his name Subscribed therevnto hee doth really beleiue it to be his owne hand writeing, That this deponent was with the Said John Dinely in this place from which they were bound together for Virginia & he doth verry well remember Seuerall particulars of the Goods which John Dinely receiued for y^t which he entred into this Obligacion to m^r Stenwick at that tyme & the deponent doth verrily beleiue that the Said Debt was never paid by him to m^r Stenwick, or by his Order to anyone else vnto him for that the Said John Dinely neuer returned back from Virginia either to this place or New England for that he Sayled from thence to the West where he made some voyages vp & downe & there Dyed

Sworne before mee in New yorke this 20^th Day of May 1671

Matthias Nicolls seer.

. . . True Coppie as Attests FreeGrace Bendall Cler

Captain William Davis, attorney for Steenwyck, sued Fathergon Dinely before the Suffolk County Court at the session of March-April, 1671. The record (S. F. 1290.9) follows:

At a County Court held at Boston 31. 1: m^o 1671

Capt^a W^m Davis p^lt as Attourny to Cornelius Steenwick against goods, Debts or Estate formerly belonging to John Dinely decea[sed] now in the hands of Fathergon Dinely administrate^r to the said Estate Defend^t in an action of Debt of Sixteene hundred [ninety] six gilders & sixteene Stivers due by bill & interest . . . the jury . . . found for the D[efend^t] costs of Court.

A review was granted at the July session of the County Court in 1671 (S. F. 1290.6), and the judgment was reversed. Captain Davis promptly appealed to the Court of Assistants (S. F. 1290.13):

William Dauis his Reasons of Appeale from the judgm^t of the Hon^d County Court in Boston.

1^st Because yo^r Appellant suing vpon the bill of debt in Jan. last, hauing butt one Wittnes to proue itt, was Cast whearevpon suing on a review in July last, though new Euidence was produced, was Cas^t againe, and as I vnderstand, beecauss I produced a bond of the p^rsen^t Def^ts to pay such a summ as in satisfaction of John Dinleys debt ∴

2^ly Becauss although such a bond was produced yett itt was butt in way of Euidenc; & the bond itt selfe butt a Security for paym^t, for hee neuer tooke vp the Bill ∴

3^ly Becauss hauinge bothe the principles bill, and his Bro. Bond, itt was in my liberty to sue Either & vpon recouery from the principles Estate the bond was [torn] in Courss. Beesides the principle hath an [torn]te to bee Found. the Surty hath non theirefore I Conceiue the Cass should haue gone for the plantife ∵

W^m Davis Attourney

to Cornelius Stenwyck

Receaued the thirtieth Day of Agust at six of the Clock in the afternoone as Attests FreeGrace Bendall Cler.

The bond to which he refers was probably the following (S. F. 1290.21):

Whereas my Brother John Dinely of Boston deceased was before his death justly & truely indebted unto M^r Cornelius Steenwick of the Citty of New yorke Merchant in the full Summe of Sixteene hundred ninty six gilders & Sixteene Stivers, as alsoe Six hundred pounds of Tobacco more which the saide Cornelius Steenwick paide & disbursted for the saide John Dinely to one M^s Wessell & alsoe to one M^r Jaques Casseau of the same City Merchant in the full quantity of one Thousand Eight hundred fifty nine pounds of good Tobacco, which saide Debt the saide Cusseau hath assigned & transported over unto the saide Cornelius Steenwick as his one proper goods & Chatties; all which Debts should haue beene paide by the saide John Dinely in good sound Merchantable Leafe Tobacco free deliverance in New yorke in the yeare 1663 all which Summes at 4^d per pound without interest amounts unto One hundred & thirty five pounds & fiue shillings Sterling.

Know all men therefore by these pu^rsents that I Fathergon Dinely of Boston in New England my heires & Executo^rs doe stand firmely bound unto the above saide Cornelius Steenwick his heires Executo^rs administrate^rs or assignes in the full Summe of two hundred & Seventy pounds Sterling to which paiment well & truely to bee made I doe binde mee my heires Executo^rs & administrato^rs firmely by theire pu^rsents. In wittness whereof I haue hereunto Set my hand & Seale in New yorke this thirtieth day of June 1670.

The Condicion of the within written obligacion is such that whereas the within bound Fathergon Dinely hath at this pu^rsent time a certaine Estate in his hands at his disposing of his saide Brother John Dinely deceased & alsoe is apparent heire & Executo^r to his saide Brother by due course of law, his saide brother dying without issue. Now if the saide Fathergon Dinely his heires, Execut^rs or assignes (after paying to Capt^a Lake the Summe of forty two pounds ten Shillings & unto M^r Gibson about Eight pounds more) doe well & truely pay or cause to bee paide unto the saide Cornelius Steenwick or his order the full Summe of one hundred thirty five pounds & five Shillings Silver pay or mony in the Citty of Boston in New England Provided there shall bee Effects be in his hands when they abouemencioned two Summes are paide or allowed none other to haue pu^rferenc[e] or excepted then this pu^rsent obligacion to bee voide & of none Effect, otherwise bee of full force & Vertue.

Fathergon Dinely & a Seale

Sigillat et Deliberat in pu^rsentia Henry Newton John Sharpe Notar Public. Thomas Taylor

Memorand. it is Mutually agreed on & concluded by & between the parties above mentioned before the Signing & Sealing hereof that the saide forty two pounds to Capt^a Lake & Eight pounds to M^r Gibson are not to bee paide by the saide Dinely before the abovementioned Summe to Cornelius Steenwick unless the saide Dinely is thereunto constreined & compelled by due course of law & order of Court.

. . . True coppie . . .

The case reached the Court of Assistants on September 5, 1671. The material part of the record (S. F. 1290.7, printed in Records of Court of Assistants, iii. 208), follows:

The jury brought in theire Verdict. a Speciall Verdict. i. e. in case the great blots or blurrs on the bill in question being mostly in the place of the Testimonies Subscription will make it voide in law, notwithstanding a possitive witness to the bill affirming the Subscription of the Debtor & other Testimony affirming the owning the Debt then wee finde for the Defendant costs of Courts; But in case such blot as aforesaide will not nullify the saide bill in law then wee finde for the plaintiffe one hundred forty one pounds Eight Shillings in Country pay & costs of Courts. The Magestrates on perusall of this Verdict findes for the plaintiffe one hundred forty one pounds Eight Shillings in currant Country pay & costs of Courts four pounds thirteen Shillings & nine pence—This Verdict is to stand Entred from y^e 5^th March 167½. according to law.

That this is a True Coppie taken out of the Courts booke of Records Attests

Edw: Rawson Secret.

Isaac Addington Cler.”

In consequence of this decision in favor of Steenwyck, a writ of execution was issued against the Dinely estate in his brother Fathergon’s hands, and a lot 61 x 41½ x 115 x 100 feet “vpon the Street where the prison is” in Boston, together with a two-acre pasture, were apprised at 1051 in part satisfaction of the judgment (Records of Court of Assistants, iii. 209–11). This at length brings us to the action of review of Dinely v. Steenwyck recorded in the entry above. William Davis’s reasons of appeal from that verdict to the Court of Assistants (S. F. 1290.15) follow:

W^m Dauis, Attourney of Cornelius Stenwick his Reasons of Appealle from the Verdict of the Jury in Octob^r 1672

first Becauss the accion Commenced against the pl. by the Defend^t, is nott the same vpon w^ch the pl obtained a judgm^t in sep^t 1671 att the Court of Assistants the demonstration hereof appeares

first The pl. sued the Estate, formerly belonging to Jn^o Dinely deceased in the hands of Fathergone Dinely, administrator to the said Estate, as per attachm^t [ ] will appeare:

2^ly By the Verdict of the Jury & judgm^t of Court w^ch is against Fathergone Dinely, & nott against Jn^o Dinelys Estate Deceased, as the Defen^ts attachm^t Saith—3^ly—Becauss the law title tryalls saith in Causes beetwene party & party, if the party agains^t whom judgm^t shall pass shall haue any new plea &c;656 w^ch law Supposeth itt must bee the same Case in w^ch the party was Caste muste bee Reuiewed, butt this Case is nott Such, for

Firs^t The Case tryed beefore the Courte of assistants, was nott produced, onely a few loose pap^rs; Therefore noe Reuiew of the Case wherin the pl obtained judgm^t—2^ly—No new Euidence was produced by the defendant, Either to null the Bill, or prooue the debt paid, w^thout w^ch no reuiew, Could bee granted, any pap^rs whatsoeuer of another Importe, & pretended new Euidences Notwithstanding

3^ly The Records of the Court of Assistants were nott produced vpon w^ch judgm^t was giuen by them, w^thoutt w^ch the Court Could nott Comp[ ]any plea or Euidence Called new—4 ly—By this meanes the Deft reflects greate injustice on this Hon^d Court, in granting a judgm^t, vpon onely pra’tended grounds—5^ly—by this means the Court & Jury were abused, & the Jury misled to an issue in their Verdict, as will Appeare on furthar plea.

W^m Davis

These Reasons were received from Capt^a William Davis Feb^ry: 26:1672

As Attests Isaac Addington Cler

Here there is a gap in the record. It would seem that, in view of Dinely’s subsequent actions, the Court of Assistants must have reversed the verdict of the County Court in its winter session of 1672–73, but no record can be found. Dinely’s next move was to sue Captain Davis (S. F. 1290.5):

To The Marshall of y^e County of Suffolk or his Deputy

You are heereby required in his Ma^ties Name to Attach the goods or Estate of Cornelius Fenwick in the hands of Cap^t William Dauis by Vertue of an Execution granted to the Said Cap^t Dauis as Attourney to the s^d Fenwick & serued to vallue of one hundred & fiuety pounds to be responsall at the next County Court to be held at Boston then & there to Answere y^e complaint of Fathergon Dinely Administrator to y^e Estate of Jn^o Dinely Deceased in an Action of the Case for Illegal seizing aprizing & makeing Diuition of a howse & land, that the aforesaid John Dinely was neuer Legally possessed of nor diuition euer hauing bin made betwene y^e afores^d John & Fathergon Dinely in the said Land but after the Decease of John Dinely Fathergon Dinely his Brother as Administrator to the Deceased his Estate was Legally possessed of y^e s^d howse & Land & hath fully Satisfied for them as may appeare by s^d Fathergon his accoumpt giuen to & accepted by the County Court with all Due Damages & so make a tru Returne heereof vnder your hand Dated the Twenty third of Aprill 1673

By the Court Jonath. Negus

. . . True Coppy . . . Free Grace Bendall Cler

For a continuance of this case—Dinely v. Steenwyck—see below, p. 246. In the meantime Fathergon Dinely endeavored to get back a bit of his own by stealing hay from Captain Davis’ barn. See below, p. 234.]

Atherton cont^a Shepard

Jonathan Atherton, plaint. cont^a George Shepard Defend^t according to Attachm^t Dat. August: 16: 1672. The plaint. in failor of process was Non Suited & Hudson Leverett Tho: Norman & Peter Egerton appearing for George Shepard for whome they were Sureties & had 11.s Costs granted them.

Execucion issued Nov^r 29^th 1672 for 11^s

Atwater cont^a Bridge

Joshua Atwater, plaint. cont^a Matthew Bridge Defendant in an Accion of Debt of seven & thirty pounds one Shilling & three pence in mony due by bill & due dammage & interest according to Attachm^t Dat. Octob^r 9^th 1672. . . . [84] The jury . . . founde for the plaint. thirty seven pounds one Shilling three pence in Mony & costs of Court. being twenty eight shillings & two pence.

Execucion issued Aug^o: 10^th: 1674 for £:38: 9: 5: mony.

Savage contr^a Hollingsworth

Capt^a Thomas Savage plaint. cont^a William Hollingsworth Defend^t in an Accion of the case for witholding a Debt of fourteen pounds in Mony due by bill with due dammages according to Attachm^t Dat. Octob^r 11^th 1672. . . . The Jury . . . founde for the plaintiffe, ten pounds Fourteen shillings & seven pence in Mony dammage & costs of court twenty seven shillings & nine pence.

Execucion issued Aprill: 22^d: 1674. for £:12:1:9. m^o

Atwater cont^a Searle

Joshua Atwater, plaint. cont^a Daniell Searle Esq^r Defend^t according to Attachm^t Dat. July. 30^th 1672. The plaint. in failor of process was nonsuited.

Atwater cont^a Searle

Joshua Atwater, plaint. cont^a Daniell Searle Esq^r Defend^t according to Attachm^t Dat. July. 30^th 1672. The plaint in failor of process was nonsuited.

Stebbins cont^a Oliver

John Stebbins plaint. cont^a Capt^a James Oliver Defend^t according to Attachm^t Dat. 17: 8: 1672. The plaint. withdrew his Accion.

Marshall cont^a Wiborn

Robert Marshall plaint. cont^a John Wiborn Defend^t according to Attachm^t Dat. 24. 7. 1672. The plaint. in failor of process was non Suited. Costs granted the Defend^t.

Execucion issued xb^r 20. 1672 for Costs.

[See above, p. 127.]

Eyre to Frost

John Eyre of Havarill, came into Court & acknowledged a judgm^t against himselfe & Estate for Eighteen pounds in Mony to John Frost Marriner of Boston. Octob^r 29^th 1672. according to bill. As Attests Isaac Addington Cler.

Execucion issued 4. Janu^r 72. for 18^li m^o

Execucion renewed 8^br 23^o 1676.

Hudson & Joy to Wharton

Capt^a William Hudson & Thomas Joy came into Court & acknowledged a a judgm^t against themselves & Estates jointly & Severally to Richard Wharton agent to Robert Bendish & Comp^a for the Summe of seventy five pounds Eleven Shillings & Eleven pence in mony according to bond, done October. 29^th 1672. As Attests Isaac Addington Cler.

Execucion issued Novemb^r 25. 1672 for £75:11:11: m^o

Freemen Sworne

Micajah Torrey, Ephraim Wight, Joseph Morse & Nathanial Whiting tooke the Oath of Freedom of this Colony. Octob^r 29^th 1672.

The Court orders a warrant to bee issued out to the Constable of Boston, to take the wearing apparrell of all sorts [85] belonging to Owen Jones, out of the hands of John Harris & deliver them to saide Jones.

Peter Goulding is ordered to attend the Court.

Savage Administracion

Administracion to the Estate of Charles Geetch deceased late Servant to Capt^a Thomas Savage, is granted to saide Savage, hee bringing in an Inventory of saide Estate & giving Security to Administor according to law. done Octob^r 29^th 1672. As Attests Isaac Addington Cler.

John Fisher’s Guardian

John Fisher, made choise of Serjant William Avery for his guardian, which the Court allowed & hee accepted.

Vigilant Fisher’s Guardian

Vigilant Fisher made choise of Serjant Thomas Fuller for his guardian, which the Court allowed & hee accepted.

Hannah Fisher’s Guardian

Hannah Fisher, made choise of Ensigne Danial Fisher for her guardian, which the Court allowed & hee accepted, being all Children of Leiv^t Joshua Fisher.

Freeman Sworn

Benjamin Bullard of Medfeilde, took the Oath of freedom of this Colony. 8^br 31^th 1672.

Joseph Harris sentanced

The Court sentenceth Joseph Harris to pay five pound in Mony fine to the County for entertaining Thomas Slade a board his Vessell & agreeing with him to carry him to Barbados, the saide Slade being a Servant to Peter Fowler, the Carges of said Fowler’s pursuing of him is to bee deducted out of saide fine, which is twenty Shillings. M^r Richard Parker Engaged before the Court to Satisfy the same, that is to say, the whole fine

Hicks’ Administracion

Timothy Hicks appeared in Court Novemb^r 1: 1672 & the Court allowed him administracion to the Estate of his late Father Richard Hicks deceased, hee bringing in an Inventory of saide Estate vpon oath & giveing Security to administer according to Law. As Attests Isaac Addington Cler.

Lawton & Bonner’s Bond

Henry Lawton & John Bonner having Severall Accions depending in Court, did Mutually agree to refer them, & the saide Lawton made choise of M^r Peter Lidget & saide Bonner for himselfe & partners chose M^r Tho: Deane & the Court appointed M^r John Joiliffe as a third man, which the persons jointly accepted off to refer to the aforesaide three Gentlemen all differences between them relating to any Voiadge or Voiadges in the Catch Recovery & acknowledge themselves bound in Court each to other in the Summe [86] of one thousand pounds to stand to theire award or of any two of them as a final determinacion. M^r Benjamin Gibbs standing bound for M^r Henry Lawton in the aforesaide Summe & Leiv^t Richard Cooke standing bound for John Bonner, vpon which they withdrew theire severall Accions, to bee jsued by the 20^th of next January. & M^r Benjamin Gibbs & Henry Lawton bound themselves in Court jointly & severally in one hundred pounds apeice for M^r Henry Ashton & John Ireland, & John Bonner & James Everell the like summe for saide Bonner, bound themselves each to other jointly & Severally, to refer all Matters of difference between the saide Ashton Ireland & Bonner concerning any Voiadge or Voiadges in the Catch Recovery to the finall determinacon of the aforesaide Gentlemen, they being to give in theire award by the 20^th of next january vpon which the plaint. withdrew his Accions.

[A consequence of one of the Ketch Recovery cases; see above, pp. 31–6, 152–3, 165–6. The record from this point becomes increasingly complicated. John Joyliffe, one of the arbitrators, declared that they were not able to make the award within the time prefixed (S. F. 1221.57); but Lawton’s refusal to perform an award of the arbitrators dated January 20, 1672 /73 is the ground of a suit brought against him by Bonner in the Suffolk Court on July 29, 1673 (see below, p. 291, and Records of Court of Assistants, iii. 250).

In the meantime, Lawton was committed to jail for failure to satisfy a judgment against him of 45l 10s in favor of Peck earlier in this same session (above, p. 163, and S. F. 162121).

Some of the evidence about their agreements and disagreements (S. F. 1221.62) follows:

William Timberlake aged 26 yeeres or thereabouts testifieth and Saith That sometime in June Last past Thomas Pecke and John Williams of Boston came to prison where Henry Lawton and this deponent were and there this Deponent heard Thomas Peck and Henry Lawton Say each to other that w^t was then said should not bee made vse on afterward against neyther of them But now this deponent is Summoned by both of them to giue his Evidence of what hee then heard which was first that Peck Desired of Lawton that there might bee an Issue put to their difference without further going to Lawe; And 2ly if hee were in his the said Lawtons Debt that hee the said Lawton might pay himselfe while there was mony in his hands of Peckes, giuing him an Account how much it was To which Lawton answering y^t there was soe much Due, which the Summe I doe not Remember Soe they broke off from any furdiscorse for that time But some dayes afterward my Cozen Peck came to prison againe and said in my hearing That if hee the said Lawton would giue him an Account of what hee had disbursed (Lawton being present) on the katch Recovery his mony was ready for him without going to Lawe for it To which Lawton replied y^t the Account was Ready if his mony was ready But this Depo[nen]t Sawe neyther the money nor Account and further Saith not

Sworne in Court 2: 6^m 1673, as attests

Isaac Addington Cler.

S. F. 1221.63

John Bonner aged 30 yeeres or thereabouts Saith That I sould to m^r Thomas Pecke Eight Chaldron odd bushells of Coles the which came from England in the Katch Recovery amounting to about Eleaven pounds which said Summe is not Discounted vpon any part of the hire of the abovesaid vessell nowe in Controversy between the said Pecke & Lawton But part was Receiued by worke done vpon another vessell [and] otherwise and part is Due still to this Deponent

Sworne in Court 3:6: 73 as Attest Isaac Adington Cler.

Lawton’s next move was to bring three actions for the same damages and detriments against Bonner at the Middlesex County Court in April, 1673 (S. F. 1221.11). Bonner refused to join issue, a judgment was recorded against him, and he appealed to the Court of Assistants (Records of Court of Assistants, iii. 248). His reasons of appeal (S. F. 1221.29) are of especial interest, as they plead many points of law:

John Bonner his Reasons of appeale in the Case of Henry Lawton plaintif and him self defendan from the Judgment of the Countie Court held at Cambridg aprill the first 1673 in the Case of Charging the sayd bonner for designedly neglecting his dewtie as master and so forth

first as hath bin sayd in other cases because the then defendant was brought to that Court Contrary to the Law here established, and that Court had noe Legall powr to trie the Case as hee humbly Conceaueth, and for that end then Cyted the Law title actions page the 2^d where its sayd that all actions of debt accoumpts slander and actions of the Case Concering debts and accoumpts shall hencforth bee tried where the plaintif pleaseth, so it bee in the Juriousdiction of that Court where the plaintif or defendant dwelleth. but neither plaintif nor defendant dwelled in the Juriousdiction of that Court, and therfore not triable there by Law

ly it was pretended that the then plaintif was a strainger, and for that end a Coppie of a law in wrighting was produced, which was made at a Genarall Court October 1672.657 Vppon which hee pleaded his Libertie there to sue the Answer was then made, that the then plaintif was noe strainger but an Inhabitant according to Law, and his Atturney m^r Gibs then owned in Court that hee liued as a sarvant with him about a twelue moneths and longe after that, it was proued that hee was sent out from here vppon an Imployment, and to returne hither againe and to Issue his busines with his Imployer, which hee hath not yet don, as is suffitiently

knowne to Courts and Cuntry, and therfore noe strainger, but as it was then allso alleaged, the Law vppon which hee grounded his Libertie to sue, was noe Law in force, as not being printed nor published, and to proue that that Law was not in force the first libertie or Law in the Law booke was Cyted wher its sayd that noe mans person shall bee arested restrained noe mans goods or Estate shall be taken away from him and the Like as is there expressed refrenc there vnto being had, vnles it bee by vertue or Equitie of sum expres Law of the Cuntry warranting the same Establish^d by the Genarall Court and suffitienly published,658 but the Law Cyted was not suffitiently published, and that farther appears in that the Law relating to spetiall Courts is againe reprinted and not this new law and therfore not in force in this Case but Nextly if it had bin in force, yet it noe way Concerned the then plaintif for hee was vppon noe Imediat Imploy either as marchent or marrinor as that Law expresseth. hee had mediat work enough here for hee was in the prisson at Boston and had let pas seuerall Courts, in the Countie where hee was, at which hee might haue tried his busines longe before and therfore it is but an emptie pretenc of his, hee was in noe neede to Run out of the way vppon that accoumpt but hee was willing to goe where his busines was not so well knowne

lastly because the then defendant appealed from the sentanc of the forfeture of the bond in this Case, and the Court Granted it and tooke Securities for the prossecuting of it, so that there was a bar in Law put against any farther to heare or trie the merrit of the Case Vntill the Superior Court appealed vnto, had determined that poynt in Law whether that Countie Court had Legall powr to trie the Case or not it seems to bee a plaine Contradiction to grant an appeale from the illegallatie of the proceding of the Court and yet to procede in the Case, the plaintifs appeale is soly in matter of Law, and not in matter of fact

John Bonner

Lawton’s answers to the reasons of appeal follow (S. F. 1221.22):

Henry Lawtons Answers to John Bonners Reasons of Appeale as he Calls them, from the sentence of the Honored Co^rt held at Camebridge Aprill the 1^t 1673: wherein the said Lawton was p^lt and Bonn^r Defend^t, for 292^li and the bond declared forfeited.

1 The p^lt or Appellant pleads that he was brought to that Co^rt Contrary to a Law, which the Appellant reciteth, The defend^t Answers that he haueing noe dwelling in the Country but being A strainger is not by that Law oblidged to prosecution in any particuler Co^rt Nor Cann the Appell^t Assigne to the Defend^t any habitation or Dwelling to make him an Inhabitant, Except it be the prison, whereby his means be hath most injuriously for severall months had his Residence, And Although the Defend^t did formerly for some time reside in the Country, yett was then never reputed an Inhabitant. And his remove and transient Condicen since hath wholy Exempted him from the Reputation and benefitt of an Inhabitant, As may Appeare in that he hath beene forced from time to time he hath had occation to give Security to the Clarke of the writts before he Could obteine Attachments Ag^t the Appellant or other his Compliers

2. The Appell^t saith he did there Appeare and Answer soe farr as he judged the Case did require The defend^t Answers he well knowing before the Error of the Appellants Judgm^t made his Adress to the honored Co^rt (in whome Alone the power of passing that Sentence Remaynd,) for Judgm^t; And not to the Appellant. And whereas he Chargeth the hono^rd Co^rt of Camebridge with Apparent Injustice) vizt, sentencing him for his obedience, the Defend^t Leaves to the hono^rd Co^rt to Justify their Righteous proceedings Ag^t such Impudent Slanders.

3. The Supreame Authority of this Country seeing good to repeale the Law for Speciall Co^rts Instead thereof Enacted that persons in the defend^ts Condicion might sue at any Co^rt in the Country Nor Cann any Nicity in point of publication destroy the Equity thereof without dishono^r to that most sage Authority that enacted the same, but what defect soever they may plead therein is supplied by that most Just and Equitable Law, Title tryalls, Sect. Last, which gives such Allowance to Straingers and New Commers as Reason and Relidgion requires, And what doth reason and Relidgion more require then that straingers vnder oppression should be spedily releived, and not be left by tedious suites and Attendances, to be devoured, And the Reason why the Defend^t omitted suing the Appell^t soe long, if it were soe long, was because he was A prison^r in Boston, by meanes of the said Bonner and his Compliers, And being not Acquainted with the Lawes, Ignorant whe[re] to goe to looke for his releife, And by the Injury donne him, by the said Bonner his Councellors and Compliers soe Impoverished that he was not able to Comence and prosecute his Action, but if he had forbeareance is n[ow] Acquittance. But the Defend^ts Injury haueing by such pleas as the Appell^t now produces, been thus farr Increased, he humbly hopes God will by the Just verdict and Judgment of this honored Co^rt and Jury make way for his releife

Hen: Lawton

The appeal was, however, allowed, and heard on September 2, 1673, before the Court of Assistants, which upheld the verdict for Lawton at the County Court at Cambridge in April. Bonner promptly “in open Court declared he did attaynt the jury,” and he and Richard Cooke and Humphry Hodges were jointly and severally bound in 50l apiece to the colony treasurer to prosecute their attainder (S. F., 1221. 13, printed in Records of Courts of Assistants, iii. 249). No record has been found of the trial. Attainting a jury “upon apparent corruption or errour in the Jury giving in their Verdict contrary to Law or Evidence” was permitted by an act of the General Court passed at the May session, 1672. Such attaint had to be prosecuted before the Court of Assistants, and tried by a jury of twenty-four men. Since this privilege was “perverted to the burthening of the Countrey with unreasonable trouble,” the General Court in 1684 imposed a fine of 34l (10l to the Colony and 2l to each juror) on the party who brought the attainder, if the first verdict was sustained, and allowed attainted jurors to bring action for slander. Colonial Laws of Massachusetts, Reprinted from the Edition of 1672, pp. 201, 319; cf. J. B. Thayer, Treatise on Evidence, p. 173. For further developments between Lawton and Bonner, see below, p. 214.]

Eliz^a Hicks’ guardian

M^r John Willoughby Marriner is appointed by the Court to bee guardian to Elizabeth Hicks daughter of Richard Hicks deceased, which hee accepted.

Tho: Hicks’ guardian

Nathaniell Beadle of Salem is appointed by the Court to bee guardian to Thomas Hicks, which hee accepted.

Margaret Prince her Oath

Margaret Prince of Hingham, being accused by Joseph Indian for Selling him three pintes of Sider for which she paide him threepence, whereby hee was druncke sometime this last Summer, she offered to purge her selfe by her Oath, which she did as followeth; I doe here Swear by the great & dreadfull Name of the Everliving god that I neither directly nor indirectly did Sell any Sider to saide Joseph Indian nor tooke mony for it, soe help mee god.

Roxberry present^d

The Towne of Roxberry presented for a defect in theire high way betwixt Muddy river & Stony River, The Court orders that it bee repaired by the next Court, or the Towne to pay five pounds.

Roxbury & Dedham presented

The Townes of Roxbeery & Dedham presented for breach of Law in not renewing theire Markes in the line betwixt theire Townes according to the law page 6: Sect. 1659. The Court appoints Capt^a Thomas Savage & Capt^a Hopestill Foster as a Committee, to hear the differences between the Townes & to make return to the next Court of this County, the Committee to appoint the time.

Mary Wales pu^rsentm^t

Mary Wales of Dorchester presented for reproachfull words against M^r William Stoughton & the rest of the Select men of Dorchester M^r Stoughton owned [87] in Court, she had given them Satisfaction. The Court orders her to pay fees of Court & soe is discharged.

Jon^a Adams & Wife presented made default

Jonathan Adams & his wife of Medfielde, presented for absenting themselves from the publique worship of god on the Sabbath dayes, the persons being Summoned & making default in appearance. The Court orders an Attachmt to bee issued forth for them against the next Court.

Brantery present^d

The Towne of Brantery presented for defect of a Schoolemaster answer was made they were Supplied.

Sampson Shoare presented

Sampson Shore Constable of Hull presented for refusing to serve a replevin according to his office the presentm^t not being proved fell.

Committee about Mahoon’s estate

The Court appoint’s M^r Anth^o Stoddard & Capt^a W^m Davis as a Committee to Set out & devide the remaining part of the Estate of Dorman Mahoone; which was left of that Set out to his son Daniell by a Committee of 7^br 1668 equally between his second son David & daughter Margaret & to make return thereof to the next Court of this County. made theire return this Court.

[See John H. Edmonds, Dorman Mahoone alias Mathews, an early Boston Irishman. Proceedings of the Bostonian Society, January, 1917, pp. 44–71.]

Loue’s sentance

Richard Loue, bound over to this Court, for wounding Joshua Hews jun^r in the head by throwing a stone at him which was proved against him. The Court Sentanceth him to pay five pounds in Mony fine to the County & fees of Court; vpon his peticion The Court remitted forty Shillings of his fine.

Way’s bond forfited

Leiv^t Richard Way being bound in a bond of for his Servant appearance at this Court, who being called for Leiv^t Way made answer hee was run away vpon which the Court declared his bond forfited.

Niteport, Graues & Tuckerman sentanced

Ruth Nueport, Deliverance Graves & Elisabeth Tuckerman, bound over to this Court for keeping riotous Company at unseasonable times of night & disturbing theire Neighbours The Court Sentanceth the saide Nueport & Graves, considering the imprisonment they have suffered to bee admonished in Court & pay fees & Elisabeth Tuckerman to pay fees of Court.

Lewis sentanced

John Lewis, being bound over to this Court for abuseing of the Watch, of which hee was convict, the Court Sentanceth him. to pay fifty Shillings in mony fine to the County & fees of Court, standing committed till hee performe it.

Judkin Sentanc’t

Sammuell Judkin, bound over from the Court of Assistants to this Court on Suspicion of being naught with Sarah [88] an jndian Squaw. The Court Sentanceth him to bee whip’t with twenty Stripes or to pay five pounds in Mony fine to the County & fees of Court, & to pay charges of prosecution standing committed till the Sentance bee performed.

Long’s sentance

Joseph Long of Dorchester presented for Selling Sider by retaile contrary to law, which hee owned in Court. The Court Sentenceth him to pay five pounds in Mony fine to the County & fees of Court. Vpon his Peticion the Court remitted halfe his fine provided hee pay the other by the next County Court.

Collins sentanced

Robert Collins, bound over to this Court, for running away from his Master with M^r Sammuell Shrimpton’s Sloope which hee owned in Court. The Court Sentenceth him to bee Severely whip’t with twenty Stripes & to pay fees of Court, standing committed till the Sentance bee performed.

Pemerton’s sentance

John Pemerton, committed to Prison for having a hand in conveying away Capt^a Mosely’s Servant & others from theire Masters, it not being proved the Court Sentanceth him to bee admonished & to pay fees of Court.

Lawson sentanc’d

Christopher Lawson, being committed to prison till hee founde Security for the good behaviour, the Court orders him to pay fees of Court & prison & soe is discharged

Gold sentanced

Benjamin Gold, convicted for playing at Cards & keeping bad company, the Court Sentanceth him to pay five Shillings in Mony fine to the County & fees of Court & the Select men of Boston are to put him forth as a Servant to M^r John Paine of Hog island or some other good Ma^r.

Bedwell sentanc’d

Sammuell Bedwell, convict for Stealing severall goods from his Master Godfry Armitage & others. The Court Sentanceth him to bee whip’t with fifteen Stripes & to pay fees of Court & prison standing committed till the Sentance bee performed.

Hall sentanced

George Hall, convict for Stealing Linnen from Severall persons. The Court Sentanceth him to bee whip’t with twenty Stripes & to pay fees of Court & prison standing committed while the Sentance bee performed: and the persons to whom the Linnen belongs to take every one theire owne.

Mason sentenced

Christopher Mason, convict of getting M^r Rock’s Negroe maide Bess with Childe, which hee owned in Court. The Court Sentanceth him to bee whip’t with twenty Stripes & to pay fees of Court & prison & to give in bond of twenty pound for the good behaviour till the next Court of this County. M^r Joseph Rock acknowledged himselfe bound in the Summe of twenty pounds to the Treasuror [89] of the County of Suffolke, on condicion his man Christopher Mason shall bee of good behaviour till the next Court of this County & then appeare if in the Country.

Joseph Indian sentanced

Joseph an Indian, convict of drunkenness & abuseing severall persons in his drincke, The Court Sentanceth him to bee whip’t with ten Stripes & to pay Fees Court & prison & charge of Witnesses, standing committed till the Sentance bee performed.

Mary Plumb sentanced

Mary Plumb, convict of Lascivious carriage by being seene in bed w^th a man. The Court Sentanced her to bee whip’t severely with fifteen stripes & to pay fees of Court & prison & to stand committed to the house of correction till the Select men of Dorchester provide a meete service for her.

Order to Tho: Smith

Vpon the Motion of Thomas Smith concerning Sara: Blacklock, The Court orders that the saide Smith get Goodwife Baxter, Goodwife Smith, Midwives; & the Midwife hee brought out of England; w^th M^rs Parker & M^rs Sandys to repaire to the prison & to Search saide Blacklock, whether ever she hath had a Childe & to make return thereof to the adjournm^t of this Court.

[See above, pp. 128, 149, 164–5, and below, pp. 189, 237.]

Stevens Sentanced

Aron Stevens, being convicted for Enticing Servants to run away from theire Masters; The Court Sentanceth him to bee whip’t with ten Stripes & to pay fees of Court & prison.

Waldren & Smith’s bond for arbitracion

Isaac Waldren, as Attourny to his Brother William Waldren & Christopher Smith appeared in Court Nov^r 6. 1672. & mutually agreed to put all matters of difference whatsoever between them to reference, & the s^d Waldren chose Liev^t Richard Cooke, & saide Smith chose Capt^a William Davis and the Court appointed Capt^a Thomas Lake as vmpire in case the other two doe not agree, & the parties aforesaide bound them selves each to other in the Summe of two hundred & fifty pounds apeice in Money to stand to theire award according to law as a finall determinacion, the saide award to bee given in in fourteen dayes next following.

[See above, pp. 135, 158, 163–4, and below, pp. 193, 202]

Goulding sentanced

Peter Goulding, convict of antedating Writings & stirring up persons to goe to law, and buiing of Debts to Vexe others with Suites. The Court Sentanceth him to bee disinabled for pleading in any Court as an Attourny or Assigne (except in his owne case) and that hee doe not undertake to draw up any writings for others without allowance of Authority & to pay the charges of prosecution & fees of Court. [90]

order to y^e Treasuro^r

The Court orders the County Treasuro^r to repaire the bridge at Roxberry neere the fulling Mill.

Jones licence

M^rs Dorothy Jones had Licence granted her to sell bottle Sider.

Return of the Committee for devid the land of Dorman Mahoon

In pursuance of the order of this honoured Court, Wee whose Names are under written, haue devided the Land of the late Dorman Mahoone as followeth, one moity from Heugh Drury’s corner post of his fence up the Streete South seventy seven foote in front, from Heugh Drury’s post west forty two foote, from thence cross the ground to a post mark’t in Emmans’ Fence forty six foote, from saide post to the Street on a streight line & this to bee one single divicion.

The rest of the land from Emmans’ corner post by the lane towards the feilde sixty eight foote & halfe, thence along Heugh Drury’s fence to a marked post eighty five foote, thence to a post in Emmans’ fence marked 46 foote, provided if David possess the first Dividend hee must remove the frame to the other Dividend where they will haue it Set.

Dat. in Boston Nov^r 6: 1672.

Anthony Stoddard

W^m Davis

[See above, pp. 182–3.]

[Order to Mather]

In answer to the peticion of Jonathan Atherton the Court orders that notice bee given to Timothy Mather to appear at the Adjourment of this Court to answer saide Atherton’s complainte. afterwards vpon hearing of his being in Towne the Court sent for him presently.

Peticion of Rich^d Thayre answered

In answer to the Peticion of Richard Thayre of Brantery concerning differences between him & Joane Pray widow. The Court appoint’s Leiv^t John Holebrooke, Leiv^t Edmund Quinsey & Capt^a Richard Bracket as Committee to hear the differences between saide Thayre, widow Pray & her son & to make return thereof to the Adjournm^t of this Court.

The Court Adjourned to the 28^th Novemb^r 1672. [91]

The Court Met according to Adjournmen^t

Present

John Leverett Esq^r Dep^t Gov^r	Edw: Tyng Esq^r
	W^m Stoughton Esq^r

Seth Flint’s guardians

Seth Flint, Son of M^r Henry Flint late of Brantery deceased, made choise of M^r Richard Collicot & Serjant Richard Ellis for his Guardians; which they accepted of & the Court allowed.

Court order about Pray of Brantry

Vpon Informacion given into this Court, by a Committee appointed by this Court, to hear the differences between Richard Thayre & Widow Joane Prey of Brantery concerning the saide Pray’s Living in a house that endangereth her life, & refusing to accept of better provicion The Court orders that the Select men of Brantery veiw the saide Pray’s habitacion & if they finde it to bee dangerous for her & shee to bee wilfull, that then they secure her by providing some other habitacion for her which shall not bee a weakning of her title to her now habitacion.

Mason’s discharge from treynings

Robert Mason of Milton is discharged from ordinary Treynings.

Freemen Sworne

M^r John Winslow, Ephraim Savage, Joseph Wheeler & Manassah Beck all of Boston tooke the Oath of freedom of this Colony.

Marshall Wayte adm^r to Biggleston

Marshall Richard Wayte, is appointed by the Court to bee Administrato^r to the Estate of John Biggleston of Bristow Marriner deceased, who dyed on board the Ship SeaFlower Tho: Smith Ma^r in her late Voiyadge from Jamaica, hee bringing an Inventory of s^d Estate vpon Oath.

Order about Pococke

Vpon Caution given into this Court by the Selectmen of Boston against John Pocock residing in theire Towne, The Court ordered the saide Pocock to depart the Towne

Wooster sentenced

Constance Wooster convict of Stealing Severall peeces of linnen, from the wife of Joseph Stocker The Court Sentanceth her to return the saide Stocker her Linnen againe & to pay her six Shillings in Mony being that threefold restitution that the law requires & to pay fees of Court.

Cittern Sentenced

William Citterne, convict of Severall drunkennesses & owning his attempt to poison himselfe. The Court Sentanceth him to beewhip’t with twenty stripes & to pay fees of Court & to stand committed to [92] to prison till the next Court of this County, except his Ma^r procure an order from the Magestrates in Boston for his Liberty sooner.

Mosanto Indian sentenced

Mosanto Indian convict of going into the house of Nathaniell Clap of Dorchester in the night The Court considering his punishm^t already by imprisonm^t Sentanceth him to bee admonished & to pay the Charges of prosecution & fees of Court.

Puglice Sentanc’d

Anne Puglice, convict of Selling Brandy contrary to Law. The Court Sentanceth her to pay five pounds fine in Mony to the County & fees of Court & to stand committed till she finde Sureties for her good behaviour, twenty pound bond her husband & ten pound apeice two Sureties.

Blacklock sentanced

Sarah Blacklock, convict of belying & falsely accusing her Selfe, in Saying shee miscarried of a Childe which was buried privately, who vpon Search made is judged never to haue had a Childe. The Court Sentanceth her to bee whip’t severely with twenty Stripes, paying the charge of prison & Fees of Court is discharged & is to return to her Master & to serve soe much time as shall make good what time shee hath lost & pay her charges & the former order of Court to Tho: Smith concerning her is reversed.

[See above, pp. 128, 149, 164–5, 185, and below, p. 237.]

Hodges sentanced

M^r Humphry Hodges convict of Vilifying & reproaching the Courts & theire proceedings. The Court Sentanceth him to pay ten pound in mony fine to the County & fees of Court the saide Hodges appealed & the saide Humphry Hodges as principle in twenty pounds & M^r Richard Collicot & Thomas Clarke as Sureties in ten pounds apeice acknowledged themselves jointly & severally bound to . . . prosecute his appeale . . .

[Hodges was a friend of John Bonner, and the vilification in question was in connection with the judgment in Bonner v. Ashton (above, p. 97), one arising out of the voyage of the ketch Recovery. The main testimony (S. F. 1153.4) follows:

William Norman aged thirty Six yeares or thereabouts Testifieth & saith, that I this Deponent being in the Towne house with M^r John Saffine on Saturday Last afternoone being the third of August, I heard a hot dispute between the saide Saffine & M^r Humphry Hodges, about the Accion that was in Court betweene M^r Henry Ashton & John Bonner; wherein the saide Hodges many times charged the saide Saffine with base unworthy dealings in that matter, saying five or Six Severall times over, that M^r Saffine had gone in an underhand way & prepossessed the Deputy Governo^r & the Jury with the case & there were three witnesses hee could bring that would take theire oathes of it; to which the saide Saffine replied tis a most notorious falsehood, for I never spake one word either with the Deputy,660 or any one of the jury or any one of the magestrates, out of Court, to this very moment, & quoth hee this is a meere device to Salue yo^r Selfe & cast the reproach upon mee, but they that make lyes theire refugesh all Surely come to nothing, & as for yo^r part M^r Hodges you haue beene a meere jncendiary in this buisness & are as a reede of Egipt to Bonner for by yo^r advice hee hath leaned upon you & you haue run into his hand, quoth M^r Hodges I doe not vallue a Straw what the Court hath done, I will not give Ashton five pounds for all hee will get, why replied I (this Deponant) what doe you make Nothing of the Court & jury; quoth M^r Saffine are the Court unwise & the jury fooles, & haue you all the wisdom, doth noe body understand anything but you, surely saide I this Deponent if a Court & jury bee nothing strangers will haue Little Encouragement to goe to law in New England quoth M^r Hodges noe it is nothing for what one Court doth another undoeth. there was many more words to this purpose all which I this Deponent cannot remember, but as saide, Hodges did often charge M^r Saffine for Endeavouring to corrupt the Jury & prepossess the Deputy, I this Deponent saw the Deputy661 comming up the Streete towards M^r Usher’s, vpon which I saide looke yonder comes the Deputy hee’le end the buisness presently, come quoth M^r Saffine to M^r Hodges goe with mee to the Deputy & wee’le aske him whether it bee soe or noe, but M^r Hodges would not goe, whereat M^r Saffine replied what are you ashamed of yo^r Craft, & to owne what you haue saide, quoth M^r Hodges I doe not say you spoke with the Deputy but that there are three witnesses that will take theire oathes of it whereupon M^r Saffine went out to meete the Deputy & called mee this Deponent who further saith not.

Sworne unto August 8^th 1672 before Edw. Ting Assist.

Four others testified to the same conversation (S. F. 1153.4). Respecting Hodges’ appeal to the Court of Assistants, the following Answer (S. F. 1153.1) by Isaac Addington, Clerk of the County Court, appears to have been effective:

Answers to M^r Humphry Hodges, his pretended Reasons of Appeale from the Sentance of the County Court held at Boston on adjournment. November 28^th 1672

1: Whereas hee saith the fact hee is charged with doth consist in matter of words: to this I answer hee may not onely legally bee charged but alsoe justly Sentanced for reproachfull words when legally proved as these are; alsoe the appealant seemes to insist much upon the words of his bond, that noe other matter is hee bound to answer to, but such words as tend to the reproach of the Dep^t Governo^r in this the appealant Subtilly misinformes this hono^rd Court & leaues out the halfe of his charge, being bound over as well for reproaching the Jury as the Dep^t Govemo^r & whereas hee argues from the word (tending) that what hee hath saide falls short of a reproach in good reason & law to this I answer though hee bee onely bound over to answer for words tending to the reproach of the Dep^t Gov^r & the Jury, yet upon the tryall of the case the matter being proved to bee reproachfull hee is justly Sentanced for the Sam[e] As for jnstance a person being committed upon Suspicion of theft if upon the tryall it bee proved against him, hee is Sentanced for his theft, notwithstanding his Mittimus bee but upon Suspicion; alsoe the appealant saith the words are not certainly or legally proved, that I leaue to the wise consideracion of this hono^rd Court whether three positiue Witnesses make not a legall proofe; neither are there such contradictions & disagreements in the Evidences as the appealant would seeme to make, for two of the Witnesses agree in his saying positiuely that m^r Saffin went in an underhand way & preposessed the Dep^t Gov^r & the Jury with the case, & what could this doe less then reflect dishono^r both upon the Dep^t Gov^r & the Jury, to say they had received a preinformation of a case they were to judge of from one of the parties: and whereas the appealant Saith the Dep^t Gov^r was pleased at his tryall to Say hee did waue & pass by the whole matter that concerned himselfe; if the appealant could as truely haue said the whole Court had done soe, by what was Evidenced against him, then had it been a good reason; but though the Dep^t Gov^r passed it by, yet the rest of the Court, who were the proper judges of the case did not, as appeares by theire Sentance.

2. To his 2^d Reason, Whereas the Appealant saith, notwithstanding all before saide & done in the pu^rmises, hee was Sentanced to pay ten pounds in mony for villifying & reproaching the Courts & theire proceedings, grant it bee soe, yet legall enough being Sentanced for what was proved: & whereas hee saith hee never knew any man accused for one thing & condemned for another as by his bond & judgment will appeare, being contrary to common reason & practice of Courts: I humbly conceiue the appealant is under a mistake; for hee is Sentanced for what was proved against him upon his tryall & that very legally, & according to practice of Courts; as for jnstance a man may bee bound over for a Riott, yet vpon the tryall it may fall short of proofe, but if it bee proved against him that hee did Swear or was drunck, hee may bee legally Sentaneed for his oaths or Drunkenness though not bound over to answer for them, yea many times a man is Sentanced for a Fact committed in Court, neither doth the law say a man shalbee Summoned six dayes beforehand to answer for a crime: and whereas the appealant passes his judgment on the Court’s Sentance to bee contrary to common Reason & practice of Courts, because the Court’s Sentance & his charge in the bond are not in all the terms of it alike this is a gross mistake for the Sentance ought not to bee compared with the bond onely, but with the Evidences on which it is grounded: alsoe hee saith that the Testimonies of Norman & Seymor differ in the very essentiall word that altereth the whole Sence & applicacion of the words; I answer noe such difference appeares; for the one saith hee vallued not a Straw what the Court had done, & the other hee vallued not a Straw what was done, which must necessarily imply the Court, by his following words of what one Court doth another undoeth, so that by both theire Testimonies & alsoe by Will^m Shutes it plainly appeares hee had a very slight Esteem of the Courts proceedings; & although the case on Bonner’s side were never soe just, yet it did not then soe appeare to the Court by the proofes before them as hee himselfe confesseth, when hee saith the Courts judgment might bee just to cast it as they did, neither doth the Equity of Bonner’s case justify the Appealant’s reproachfull Speeches, notwithstanding all his elaborate paines in unravelling of the Testimonies in his pretended vindication: Whence the discourse arose is unknown & whether the Witnesses had malice or noe it matters not, Malice may bee a good jnformer though not a judge: and whereas the Appealant soe much reflects on the Evidences in Saying they Sweare carelesly & desparately, his soe Saying doth not make it soe & although jrish men & Strang^rs yet might theire Oaths bee as true as Englishmens & inhabitants & are as valid in law.

3. To his third & last Reasons, wherein hee objects a mistake in the judgment in that it saith hee is convicted for reproaching & villifying the Courts and theire proceedings in y^e plurall number & an Erro^r in judgment Nulls the judgment. I answer the Evidences doe Speake of his reproaching more Courts then one & therefore is the judgment according to Evidence & noe mistake in judgment. And whereas in the close of his discourse hee doth humbly craue that hee may haue the benefit of y^e law & priviledge of a Subject making his application to the Gentlemen of the Jury as they are upon theire Solemn Oaths, not to haue respect of persons pretending to stand up for the liberty of the people. To this I answer the Appealant hereby, (notwithstanding a great flourish of a vindication & cleering of his jnnocency) as to his reproaching the Courts, seemes highly to reproach the very Court appealed from as if hee were there denied the liberty of the law or priviledge of a Subject; which if hee thereby jntends a tryall by a Jury; I answer it was never denied him neither did hee ever move it; I know not what else hee should jntend by y^e benefit of y^e law or a Subject’s priviledge, without hee should desire a priviledge which I thincke few Subjects but himselfe would, to villify & reproach Courts at his pleasure & to goe unpunished for it, & the appealant Seemeth to bee somewhat conscious of his guilt herein in the very last expressions of his reasons wherein hee craues pardon of this Court. I shall humbly leaue the consideracion & jssue of the whole Matter to the wise Determinacion of this hono^rd Court & Subscribe mySelfe.

Yo^r Worship’s most humble Servant Isaac Addington Clarke of the County Court of Suffolk, by appointm^t of the saide Court]

Court order about Jarrett

The Court orders that James Jarrett bee continued in prison till the next Court of this County except the Magestrates of Boston see cause to the contrary.

Johnson’s Licence

M^rs Abigaile Johnson had licence granted her to Sell Sider by the quart, but not above two pence per quart shee giving in bond to observe the law with Sureties. [93]

John Marshall’s addicionall Salery

Vpon the Motion of John Marshall for an addition to his Salery for looking to the Towne house. The Court orders the Treasuro^r to pay him ten shillings per annum more then formerly.

Return of arbitrate^rs concern: Smith & Waldren

Vpon the return of the Arbitrate^rs concerning the cases between Christopher Smith & William Waldren that they had done nothing therein nor could finde any ground to bottom an award vpon. The Court declares that the Verdict of the Jury stands good & the party cast hath liberty to enter an appeale according to law.

[See above, p. 186, and below, p. 202.]

Order about Bumpas

Hannah Bumpas, being founde by Articles of confederacion to bee an jnhabitant of Hingham. The Court orders Y^t the saide Bumpas bee sent down thither & that the Select men of Hingham take care of & make that provicion that is meete for her & that the Clarke grant a Warrant to the Constable of Boston to send her thither

[See below, pp. 219, 225.]

M^r Dudly’s Peticion answered

In answer to the Peticion of M^r Joseph Dudly & Sammuell Hunting adm^rs to the Estate of M^r John Allen deceased. The Court empoures them to Entrust some meete person to take care of the Estate of M^r John Allen his son soe as it may bee Secured & emproved for his interest

Caution against Best

Vpon Caution given by the Select men of Boston against Nicholas Best residing in theire Towne. the saide Best appeared in Court & saide hee was to depart in two or three dayes to Virginia.

Averies Allowance

In answer to the Peticion of Serjant William Avery of Dedham The Court a llowes him to practice physick & Chirurgery.

Paine to Atwater

M^r John Paine appeared in Boston the first of feb^ro 1671, before Majo^r Eliazer Lusher & Edward Ting Esq^rs and acknowledged a judgment against himselfe & Estate to m^r Joshua Atwater for twenty four pounds in mony due by bill this done as aboues^d as Attests Free Grace Bendall Cler.

Execucion issued 21. 8^br 1673.

this mis’t Entry in its prop^r place. [94]

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.

At a County Court held at Boston October 29th 1672.651

Present

Jury of Tryalls Sworne.

[Wharton v. Hudson et al]

[Wharton v. Hollingsworth]

Vsher conta Timberlack

Goulding conta Down

Clarke conta Weeden

[77] Smith conta Carrington

Blighe conta Seene

Stoddard &a conta Rock

Whetcomb conta Goose

French conta Ting

Crowne conta Sprague

More conta Jones

Waldren conta Smith

Waldren conta Smith

Calley conta Warren

Pratt conta Lorings

Spencer conta Thomas

Jacob conta Joy

Keene conta Blighe

Calley attourny of Thomas conta Spencer

Hews conta Loue

Woode conta Chantrell

Peck conta Lawton

Smith conta Waldren

Smith conta Waldren

Smith conta Kent

Bonner conta Lawton

Bonner conta Lawton

Lawton conta Bonner

Bonner conta Ireland

Bonner conta Lawton

Anderson conta. Cox

Snelling conta Chantrel

Goulding conta Hauthorne

Hudson conta Shepard

Bonner conta Ashton

Bonner contra Ashton

Dinely conta Steenwick

Atherton conta Shepard

Atwater conta Bridge

Savage contra Hollingsworth

Atwater conta Searle

Atwater conta Searle

Stebbins conta Oliver

Marshall conta Wiborn

Eyre to Frost

Hudson & Joy to Wharton

Freemen Sworne

Savage Administracion

John Fisher’s Guardian

Vigilant Fisher’s Guardian

Hannah Fisher’s Guardian

Freeman Sworn

Joseph Harris sentanced

Hicks’ Administracion

Lawton & Bonner’s Bond

Eliza Hicks’ guardian

Tho: Hicks’ guardian

Margaret Prince her Oath

Roxberry presentd

Roxbury & Dedham presented

Mary Wales pursentmt

Jona Adams & Wife presented made default

Brantery presentd

Sampson Shoare presented

Committee about Mahoon’s estate

Loue’s sentance

Way’s bond forfited

Niteport, Graues & Tuckerman sentanced

Lewis sentanced

Judkin Sentanc’t

Long’s sentance

Collins sentanced

Pemerton’s sentance

Lawson sentanc’d

Gold sentanced

Bedwell sentanc’d

Vsher cont^a Timberlack

Goulding cont^a Down

Clarke cont^a Weeden

[77] Smith cont^a Carrington

Blighe cont^a Seene

Stoddard &^a cont^a Rock

Whetcomb cont^a Goose

French cont^a Ting

Crowne cont^a Sprague

More cont^a Jones

Waldren cont^a Smith

Waldren cont^a Smith

Calley cont^a Warren

Pratt cont^a Lorings

Spencer cont^a Thomas

Jacob cont^a Joy

Keene cont^a Blighe

Calley attourny of Thomas cont^a Spencer

Hews cont^a Loue

Woode cont^a Chantrell

Peck cont^a Lawton

Smith cont^a Waldren

Smith cont^a Waldren

Smith cont^a Kent

Bonner cont^a Lawton

Bonner cont^a Lawton

Lawton cont^a Bonner

Bonner cont^a Ireland

Bonner cont^a Lawton

Anderson cont^a. Cox

Snelling cont^a Chantrel

Goulding cont^a Hauthorne

Hudson cont^a Shepard

Bonner cont^a Ashton

Bonner contr^a Ashton

Dinely cont^a Steenwick

Atherton cont^a Shepard

Atwater cont^a Bridge

Savage contr^a Hollingsworth

Atwater cont^a Searle

Atwater cont^a Searle

Stebbins cont^a Oliver

Marshall cont^a Wiborn

Eliz^a Hicks’ guardian

Roxberry present^d

Mary Wales pu^rsentm^t

Jon^a Adams & Wife presented made default

Brantery present^d

order to y^e Treasuro^r

Peticion of Rich^d Thayre answered

Marshall Wayte adm^r to Biggleston

Return of arbitrate^rs concern: Smith & Waldren

M^r Dudly’s Peticion answered