At a County Court held at Boston Octob^r 28^th 1673

Present

Simon Bradstreet Esq^r	Edw^d Tyng
	W^m Stoughton

Grand jury the same w^th the former Court.

Iury of Tryalls Sworn

	L^t Ri: Way
Jn^o Pincheon	W^m Read	In^o Richards
Sam^ll Scarborough	Edw: Wilder	In^o Morss
Tho: Tolman	W^m Hearsy	Ioseph How
Alex^a Marsh	Isaac Bullard	Ioseph Webb

[Hoare v. Atkinson et al.]

William Hoare plaint. against Theodo^r Atkinson sen^r & John More Defend^ts The pl^t withdrew his accion.

[Carver v. Wright et al.]

Robert Carver plaint, against Thomas Wright Robert Johnson & Manning & Phillip Watts Defend^ts according to Attachm^t Dat. 7^br 8^th 1673 the pl^t withdrew his accion.

[Peck v. Lawton et al.]

Thomas Peck plaint. against Henry Lawton Ralph Fletcher & John Bonner or either of them Defend^ts in an accion of the case for breach of Charter party bearing date the 23^th of August 1670 & deteining his quarter part of the Catch Recovery therein mentioned aboue twelve months after expiracion of s^d Charter party being neere Fifty pounds in mony to the damage of the plaintiffe & all other due damages according to Attachm^t Dat. Octob^r 21^th 1673. . . . The Iury . . . founde for the Defend^te costs of Court: The plaint appealed from the Judgment of this Court to the next Court of Assistants, & the s^d Thomas Peck principall in ten pounds & John Williams & Rob^t Carver as Sureties in five pounds apeice acknowledged themselves respectively bound to . . . prosecute his Appeal . . .

[See note to Lawton’s Sentence, above, pp. 303–4.]

Salter ags^t Davis

Jabez Salter plaint. against Sammuell Davis Defend^t according to Attachm^t Dat. 8^th Octob^r 1673. The plaint. withdrew his accion.

Sandys ags^t Mott

John Sandys Attourny of Anne Manning sole Executrix of the Last will & testament of Richard Parker Late of Boston deceased plaint, against Nathan^ll Mott Defend^t in an accion of debt of about Sixty five pounds due by booke & due damages according to Attachm^t Dated Iuly 25^th 1673. . . . The Iury . . . founde for the plaint. Sixty one pounds seven Shillings & costs of Court being 35^s 10^d

Execucion issued for 63. 2. 10. Nov^r 6 1673. [163]

Risco ags^t Miller

Robert Risco plaint. against Thomas Miller Defend^t in an accion of the case for unjustly attaching the brigantine called the good hope of Albemarle, whereof the s^d Risco is Master, whereby hee is extreemely damnified & his Owners by severall Attachments Laide upon the aforesaide Brigantine called the good hope of the s^d Albemarle as by Account shall appeare to the vallue of One hundred & fifty pounds & all due damages according to Attachm^t Dat. August: 2: 1673. . . . the Iury . . . founde for the Defend^t costs of Court being six Shillings & ten pence.

Execucion issued for 6^s 10^d Nov^r 11 1673

[See above, pp. 277–85, 288, 299.]

Parker ags^t Corbyn

Noah Parker Son of Iohn & lane Parker, plaint. ags^t Clement Corbin Defend^t in an accion of the case for witholding three fourth parts of forty two acres or thereabouts of land, which doth belong to the s^d Noah Parker himselfe & as hee is heire to his brother John Parker deceased, the s^d Land being given to the abouenamed John & Noah as may appeare by a Deed of gift bearing date in the yeare 1646 & all other due damages according to Attachm^t Dat: Septemb^r 13^th 1673. . . . The Iury . . . founde for the Defend^t costs of Court being ten Shillings & nine pence.

Execucion issued for 10^s 9^d Nov^r 11 1673

Long ags^t French

Zechariah Long plaint. against Phillip French Defend^t in an accion of debt of seven pounds in mony or thereabouts due for freight & charges of Eight bailes of Canvas & three hogs heads of Brandy & other disburstm^ts due for s^d goods brought from Itochell upon the Acco^t of the s^d French & delivered to the s^d French at Boston as will more cleerely appeare by the Acco^t of the same being greatly to the damage of the plaintiffe & all other due damages according to Attachm^t Dat. 7^br 16^th 1673. . . . The Iury . . . founde for the Defend^t costs of Court.

Bernard ags^t Cock

Bertholmew Bernard plaint. ags^t Edward Cock Defend^t in an accion of the case for the s^d Cock his not paying of the Summe of twenty pounds currant mony of New England unto the s^d Bernard due by his Engagement or specialty bearing date the twenty ninth day of Iuly 1673, under his hand & Seal forfited by the s^d Cock his [164] Non performance of an award of Richard Collicot Hump^r Hodges & Iohn Hayward bearing date the 22^th of August 1673 relating unto the aforesaide Specialty with other due damages according to Attachm^t Dat. Septemb^r 29^th 1673. . . . The Iury . . . founde for the plaint. the Forfiture of the Engagem^t being twenty pounds in mony damage & costs of Court. The Magistrates chancered this Engagem^t to six pounds in mony & costs of Court being: 22^s

Holbrooke ags^t Mason

L^t Iohn Holbrooke, assigne to the widow Gatliffe Executrix to the Last will of her late husband Thomas Gatliffe deceased plaint. ags^t Robert Mason Defend^t The plaint. withdrew his accion

Joy ags^t Adkins

Anne Joy of Hingham widow plaint. ags^t Thomas Adkins of Boston Defend^t according to Attachm^t Dat: July: 26. 1673. The plaint. withdrew her Accion.

Scottow ags^t Felton

L^t Joshua Scottow plaint, against Benjamⁿ Felton prison keeper of Salem Defend^t in an accion of the case for releasing out of prison the body of Thomas Green late committed to the s^d Felton his charge upon Execucion issued out from the County Court held at Boston the 25^th day of the sixth month 1671 for the summe of eight pounds twelve Shillings & six pence paiable in Merchantable cod fish at twenty eight Rialls per quintall due upon bill about twenty yeares & all due damages according to Attachm^t Dat. Septemb^r 5^th 1673. . . . The Jury . . . founde for the plaint. eight pounds in Merchantable cod fish & costs of Court 28^s 6^d The magistrates respited this judgm^t till the next Court of this County. Execucion issued 29: 2^mo 1674:

Hiskett ags^t Paine

George Hiskett plaint. against Jn^o Paine Defend^t in an accion of the case for not performing & makeing good his bargain concerning a peice of land which hee sold to the s^d Hiskett, as appeares by Deed of Sale which land the s^d Hiskett dwelleth upon, but a considerable part of y^e s^d Land being wanting, which the s^d Paine hath oftentimes promised the s^d Hiskett to make good his bargain & saith that hee hath land [165] adjoining to it to make good his bargain, but neglecteth to doe it to the plaintiffes great damage & all other due damages according to Attachm^t Dat. Septemb^r 16^th 1673. . . . The Jury . . . founde for the Defend^t costs of Court.

Bartholmew &^a ags^t Ashton

William Bartholmew & James Everill or either of them plaint^s against Henry Ashton Defend^t in an accion of the case for that the s^d Ashton is possessing himselfe of a house & ground neere the Water mill in Boston, w^{ch sd} house & ground is bound over for security to the plaint^s to save them harmeless from a bond given in to the County Treasuro^r of Suffolke, by order of Court from Rebecca Greene while a widow for her true administracion upon the Estate sometime of her husband Greene deceased, out of which Estate was ordered to her Childe Rebecca Greene, by the Court two hundred pounds; the loss or taking away of which aboues^d security is to the plaintiffes damage One hundred & twenty pounds in mony & other due damages according to Attachm^t Dat. July 30^th 1673. . . The Jury founde for the Defend^ts costs of Court.

[A copy of the warrant is in S. F. 1239.]

Leverett ags^t Hudson

Hudson Leverett plaint. ags^t Cap^t William Hudson Defend^t according to Attachm^t Dat: Octob^r 23. 1673 The plaint, withdrew his accion.

Russell ags^t Hudson

Cap^t Thomas Russell plaint. ags^t Cap^t William Hudson Defend^t in an accion of debt for the non paiment of twelve pounds five Shillings in mony due by bill bearing date the twenty fifth day of may 1673 with due interest & all other due damages according to Attachm^t Dat. Octob^r 23 1673. . . . The Jury . . . founde for the plaint. twelve pounds five Shillings in mony according to bill & costs of Court being twenty five Shillings & two pence.

Execucion issued Nov^r 12: 1673.

Hudson ags^t Leverett

Cap^t William Hudson plaint. ags^t Hudson Leverett Defend^t according to Attachm^t Dat. Octob^r 23^th 1673. The plaint. withdrew his Accion. [166]

Brackenbury ags^t Welch

John Brackenbury Attourny to Job Brown, the Sonn of Heugh Brown of Boston plaint. against Thomas Welch of Charlestown sometime guardian to Job Brown Defend^t in an accion of the case for witholding a debt of thirty eight pounds or thereabouts being for part of houseing & Land in Boston which was the proper Estate of Job Brown & Sold by his then guardian unto Sammuel Ward of Boston & refuseing to pay the s^d Summe to the s^d Attourny although Lawfully demanded & also for witholding other goods or household stufte left by his Father or the Courts ord^r with all approved damages according to Attachm^t Dat. Octob^r 20^th 1673: . . . The Jury . . . founde for the Defend^t costs of Court.

Pincheon ags^t Collecott

John Pincheon plaint. ags^t Richard Collicot Defend^t in an accion of debt for not paying a debt of eleven pounds seven Shillings & two pence due by bill assigned him by his Father Majo^r John Pincheon of Springfeild bearing date y^e twenty fourth day of Octob^r 1670 as thereby may amply appeare in all respects reference thereto being had with due damages for non paiment & all other due damages according to Attachm^t Dat. Octob^r 17^th 1673. . . . The Jury . . . founde for the plaint. Eleven pounds seven Shillings & two pence in specie according to bill & costs of Court. The Defend^t appealed from the judgm^t of this Court to the next Court of Assistants, & the s^d Ri: Collicot as principall in two & twenty pounds & Humphry Hodges & In^o Williams as Sureties in Eleven pounds apeice acknowledged themselves respectively bound to . . . prosecute his Appeale . . .

[This case grew out of a journey to Springfield twenty-seven years before. Richard Collicott’s side of the case is related in S. F. 1275.6, and again in his Reasons of Appeal (S. F. 1275.3):

To the Honored Court of Assistants Assembled Jn Boston Richard Collecocts Resons of Appeale From the County Courtt Held Att Boston Jn October Last past Wherin John Pinchon Assigne To Majo^r Pinchon Esq^r Was Plantiff^e

Imp^re: The Appellantt Desires to Jnforme this Hono^rd Courtt and Jury of y^e true state of y^t Case That in y^e yeare 1646 hauing Ocasion to Ride to Conecticott m^r Atherton of Dorchester (After Majo^r Gen^rll) hauing A Daughter Liuing Att Sprinckfeild w^th one m^r Moxon who was then preacher there Desired the Appellant to Bring y^e Majo^re Daughter With him, & y^e Appellant hauing Discourse With m^r William Pinchon, he tendered to sell him A horse to Cary the young Woman Down to y^e Bay, & Accordingly wee Agreed & when J Came to Dorchester hauing noe Ocasion fo^r y^t horse J sold the said Horse to Mathew Barnes then Miller of Brain[tr]e & he was to pay fo^r y^e sd Horse to m^r [blotted] Dauis of Boston according to my Agrement With m^r Pinchon & J Cleare in my Consisance y^t Mathew Barnes Did make pay^t fo^r said Horse to sd Dauis. Both Jn time & specie, Fo^r these Reasons Following:

1^st He the said Barnes Was Looked vpon as A man of A good estate & a [torn] Looked vpon as A puncktuall man in his payments.

2. J proue by two of his men y^t wrought w^th him About that time that he Called them to help Loade his Cartt w^th A good quantity of wheat & other Corn & told them he was to Cary that Wheat to Boston to pay fo^r y^e horse then in y^e Cart bought of y^e Appell^t w^t was y^e horse in Controu^rsy & to Deliu^r y^e said wheat to y^e sd Dauis of Boston vpon y^e Appell^te Accon^t & this y^e sd Barnes spoke voluntarily to those y^t were no way Conserned in y^e Case & Doubtless he both Brought it to Boston & deliuered it Accordingly, And Doubtless J had vnd^er his hand fo^r soe Doeing & had A Receibt fo^r it but haue Lost all.

3dly. J was Att Sprinckfeild & Lodged at sd m^r Pinchens house & Lodged there after y^e payment was due & none Was Demanded of me & J spake with sd m^r Pinchon when he was Jn Boston Bound fo^r England & he neu^r then Demanded any Sattisfaction from me & J Lived After in Boston: 16: or 17. yeares [&] in New England. 40. odd yeares & neu^r out of y^e County & Majo^r pinchon hath ben here in Boston [ ] yeares & neu^r Demanded any pay from me till the yeare 1668. or 69 w^ch was 23. yeares or more After J bought the horse, But had it ben Demanded when Mathew Barnes was Liuing who Liued in Boston Afte^r J Came here to Liue & [then] Jn y^e Bay & had an Estate in Boston, But said Pinchon neu^r Demand the Debt of me till y^e said Barnes Was gone out of y^e Country & Dead & had it ben Demanded while y^e sd Barnes was here if he had not paid it J Cold haue had my Remedy Against him, & As fo^r y^e Bill on [torn] J was Sued at y^e County Court by m^r Pinchon one J was Cast J Desire y^e Hono^rd Court & Jury to Consid^er how it Can be Legall y^t J Cold be Cast on this Acco^nt fo^r Majo^r Pinchon Sued me first vpon his form^r Bill & had An Execution Against me for it & this Bill J gaue Vpon Condition J did not proue payment by Such a time so y^t y^e first Execution stands still out Against mee, & now If J should be againe Cast by this Hono^rd Court m^r Pinchon Wold haue two Executions Against me for one & the same Debt. Which J hope the Hono^rd Court & Jury will seriously Consider Legallyty off:

4: I doe this Certify To y^e Hono^rd Courtt that J neu^r Receiued The Pay From Mathew Barnes for the Horse [torn] nor any other by me or my ord^r but ordered it to bee paid to Cap^t [torn] vpon Said Majo^r Pinchons Acco^nt and To this J Can Take my Oath. . . .

Richard Callecott

These Reasons were received Feb^ry: 25^th 1673

Per Js^a Addington Cler

Collicott’s agreement, dated Oct. 24, 1670, to pay the original judgment of 11l 7s 2d obtained by Pynchon at the Springfield court, follows (S. F. 1275.4):

Whereas Cap^t Iohn Pynchon of Springfeild hath obteined a judgment ags^t mee Richard Collicot; at the last County Court in Springfeild & taken out Execution against mee to the Summe of eleven pounds seven Shillings two pence: Vpon his the sd. Pynchons forbearing the Serving the Execucion: I doe hereby Engage & promise to pay the sd Summe of eleven pounds seven Shillings & two pence by the last day of Aprill next, unless I shall make it appeare to the sd. Pynchons satisfaction that I have already paide the Summe which was due upon a bill to m^r W^m Pynchon of Springfeild Dated in Iuly. 1646 which is the ground of the Judgment afores^d Jn case of not clearing the paiment of the bill afores^d J doe by these pu^rsents binde mee my heires Executo^rs & Administrate^rs firmply to pay the aforementioned Summe of eleven pounds seven Shillings two pence in good Merchantable & well conditioned wheat at the price of four Shillings per bushell or else in mony to bee dlr^d & paide at Cap^t Davis his house in Boston by the last day of Aprill next which wilbee Ann^o 1671. to m^r John Pynchon or his Assignes. Jn Witness whereof J have hereunto set my hand this 24^th day of Octob^r An^o Dom. 1670. the words (or else in mony) was interlined before Subscribing.

		Richard Collecott
Witness.	W^m Davis
	Benj^a Davis.

Owned in Court by m^r Richard Collicot 29. 8. 73 Attests Js^a Addington Cler

. . . true Coppie . . . Js^a Addington Cler

Endorsed. Springfeild. Aprill. 21^th 1671.

M^r Rich: Colicott. S^r I desire yo^w to pay to my Sonn Iohn the mony due to mee from yo^r selfe being. 11^li 7^s 2^d in wheat at. 4^s per bush. which you [torn] Engaged to pay to my Assigne in Boston, by the last day o[f th]is present Aprill: Now I doe hereby Assigne my sonn Joh[n P]ynchon the bearer hereof to receiv[e] it of you: J pray faile not [to] pay it to him at time. & hee will dlr yo^w up yo^r bill. J subscribe.

Yo^r lo: Freind

John Pynchon

Witness to this Assignement.

Elizue Holyoke

Joseph Whiting

This Assignement was acknowledged by Majo^r John Pinchon to bee his act this 22^th Sep^er 73. before mee

Simon Bradstreet Assist

. . . true Coppie . . . Js^a Addington Cler

Collicott’s appeal was allowed, but the jury of the higher court confirmed the former judgment and imposed costs on Collicott. Records of Court of Assistants, i. 8.]

Clarke ags^t Harris

Thomas Clarke Esq^r plaint, ags^t John Harris of Charlestown Defend^t in an accion of debt of twelue pounds due by bill & due damages according to Attachm^t Dat. August 30. 1673. . . . The Jury . . . founde for the plaint, twelve pounds in mony according to bill & costs of Court being twenty six shillings two pence

Execucion issued Nov^r 12, 1673. [167]

Thayre ags^t Rose

Richard Thayre plaint, ags^t Roger Rose Defend^t in an accion of the case for not performing his Engagement or Covenant about the building a vessell at Brantery which will appeare by Evidence, which proved about two hundred & odde pounds to the damage of the plaint. & all other due damages according to Attachm^t Dat Octob^r 10^th 1673. . . . The Jury . . . founde for the Defend^t costs of Court. The plaint, appealed from the judgment of this Court to the next Court of Assistants & the s^d Richard Thayre as principall in five pounds & Nathan^ll Thayre & In^o Williams as Sureties in fifty Shillings apeice acknowledged themselves respectiuely bound to . . . prosecute his appeale. . . .

[Thayer’s Reasons of Appeal (S. P. 1342.2) explain this case. Rose’s “Answer to the Pretended Reasons” (S. F. 1342.3) incidentally reveals the existence of a “pleasure boate” in 1672. The records include a copy of the writ of attachment, and a deposition of “Edmund Quinsey aged about 43 Yeares” on 29 October 1673.

Richard Thayre Resons of Appeale From the County Courtt Held Att Boston October the 28^th 1673 Against Roger Rose Defend^t: To the Hono^rd Courtt of Assistants:

Jmp^rs: Whereas y^r Appellantt Did Att the County Courtt Sue the Defend^t For Nott p^rforming his Couenantt and Agreementt Made And Agreed vpon Aboutt the Building A vessell Att Braintre which the Appell^t hath sufficiently made Appeare by severall Evidences For First the Appellant hath Proued A Couenant made w^th y^e Appellant and others About the building A Ketch Att Braintre And mony paid by the Def^t As Owne^r of sd vessell To the Workemen for there Worke, and Also that the Defend^t sett them A Worke As by the Testimonies of John Downing n^o 1. Appeareth And that he Also paid the Workemen For the Worke Done in part vpon the vessell:

2^dly The Appellantt proues that the Defend^t himselfe Owned that he had A vessell Abuilding Att Braintre As by the Testimony of William Pen And Edward Linfford And Left Quinsey and Vining And Holebrooke Whoe Doe All Testify that he Did Owne he had A vessell A building Att Braintre, And that the Appellantt had A Partt With him, And the Defend^t paid and Disbursed Mony vpo her. Till he thoughtt he had Ketched the plantifp Sufficiently into A snare y^t he Could not Well gitt outt, And that he thought he Should Come by Damage by his neglect Jn not supplying them With what he had Jngaged According to Contractt And soe Left the Appellant Jn the Lurch, he hauing an Estate and being att Braintre and being out of purse both fo^r y^e Defend^ts partt and his Aboue 200^l besides the Damage Done to his Estate being Forsed to sell some of his Land to pay the Defend^ts Debts

3^dly The Appellantt Hath proued that the Contract betwene them and the Carpinters Was by him the Defendantt Ordered to bee made and the Directions by him giuen to y^e scriuene^r and he ordered himselfe to be owne^r w^th y^e Appellant And the mony Paid by y^e Defend^t to the Scriuene^r for making y^e Couenantt Which Js sufficiently proued by the Scriuene^rs Oath & others. & the Couenant Jtt selfe sheweth it & his seale Affixed therevnto, but the Neglect of signing of it in Time he Refused to signe, and soe Left yo^r poo^r Appellant in the Lurch, and forses him to Cary own the Designe himselfe: There is Also the protest of y^e Carpinters. Against the Defend^t as owne^r of y^e vessell and the Carpinters All along Doe Call him Owne^r of y^e one halfe of said vessell & knew no othe^r as there protest Manifesteth. And Also y^e Judg^t of y^e Commission^rs Court when he sued ye Carpinters for mony he paid them they Justly Cast him finding him An owne^r & what they Recd it was as he was Owne^r of said vessell, Which J hope this Hono^rd Court & Jury will See: And Consid^r of.

4: The Damage the Appellant Susteined By the Defend^t the plantiff^e hath proued sufficiently to be Aboue 238^l for first there is: 40^l Jn Timber sold y^e Carpint^rs, & 2^d 41^l paid the Carpinters for there Worke 3^dly there is Jron Worke & Rigin &^ct. pd m^r Kemball & others as by y^e Award 44^l 10: 10: besides my own partt: 4. There is 76^l 11^s pd m^r Parsons by Execution, and besides y^e Charges hath cost 36^l 11^s 3^d by y^e Carpinters all through the Deceibtfullness of y^e Defend^t in his Actions Besides, other Disbursements, and Cannot Dispose of y^e Ketch because of y^e Def^t Soe that Jn all the Appellant Js Damnifyed Aboue 238 which is Sufficienttly proued Which The Appellant hopes Will be Considered by this Hono^rd Courtt and Jury That soe he may haue some Releife. Weying the Euidences J hope that J haue sufficiently proued first The Defend^t to be an Owne^r And that he ordered the Carying Along of the Affaires of y^e said vessell, & hath Done the Appell^t, his Neighbo^r a great deale of wrong Contrary to y^e Law of God and man; And Also The Appell^t hath proued y^t the Defend^t by his meanes hath Wronged plantif^fe, & Damnified him in his Estate Aboue 238^l Which yo^r poo^r Appellant shall Leaue to y^e Hono^rd Court And Gentle men of y^e Jury to Consid^r hoping they will see Just Cause to Releiue him therein.

Richard Thayer

These Reasons were received Feb^ry 26^th 1673

Per Js^a Addington Cler

Roger Rose his Answer to the p^rtended Reasons of Appeale Jn the Case depending between him and Richard Thaire Appealant

Jmp^re Jn answer to his first Reason—,

Jt is not denied but that there was a treaty w^th y^e Appealan^t about the Building of a vessell at Braintry & writings might bee drawne in order thereunto: but when y^e Defend^t had pervsed sd writings & better considered therevpon, hee refused to signe & seale them For the defend^t was informed by the Appealant, That m^r Simon Linds would carry on a part of sd vessell; w^ch, when the defend^t spoke w^ch him about hee wholly refused to doe: & did asmuch discourag^e y^e defend^t And whereas y^e Appeal^t saith that hee had sufficiently proved the Couenant w^th the defend^t The defend^t Conceiues y^t if hee had soe done hee had not needed to haue appealed to this Court as nowe hee doth And it is a knowne principall in Lawe That noe man can bee cast vpon a treaty of a Couenant^t: For a Couenant vntill it bee vnder hand & seale Signifies nothing And as for w^t the defend^t did Disburse or lend vnto the Appeal^tt Jt was for or vpon building of an open vessell to carry wood & not vpon a Deckt vessell or Katch w^ch the sd Appeal^t was pleasd to build for a pleasure-Boate for himselfe.

2ly Jt’s possible the Defend^t might say y^t hee had a vessell in building at Brantry: But hee neuer Jntended any other then an open Boate as aforesd to Supply his owne occasions, which hee neuer sawe or heard was yet built: And the defend^t is not yet vnwilling to beare a part of such a vessell when shee is built, provided it may bee on termes as shee may be worth in reason.

3ly Whereas the Appealant is pleased to insist much vpon the Couenant vpon w^ch hee builds soe much nowe,: Hee hath not proved y^t the Defend^t Either Signed or Sealed any Couenant And whereas hee hints the Scriven^rs oath: For Answer. Jt is fit the Scriveno^r should bee paid though y^e parties agreed not And the affixing of wax to a paper, The Defend^t conceiues doth not oblige any further then witnesses prove that they sawe the persons signing and Sealing affix the same w^ch Neither the Scriven^r or any person else did or can testify in this case.

4ly Whereas the Appealant pleads & pretends proofe of great damage by the defend^ts not performing a Blanck or Supposed Coven^t to the value of 238^l Though the Appealant hath sould all all The defend^t hath had noe part first or last in principall or produce of sd vessell Either before or since shee was built And the plancke timber Jronworke &^c hath all been in the Appealants hands w^ch hee hath disposed of at his owne pleasure w^thout the Councell or Advice of the Defend^t or any Account giuen him of his proceedings from first to last Neither could the Appealant bee damnified to any such value as hee pretends: The defend^t declaring his disowning his proceeding in partnership before the Appealant had disburst anything considerable vpon building sd vessell.

5ly As to the Katch which the Appealant p^rtends the defend^t had an Jnterest in: Jt will bee easily proved if the Appealant deny it That hee Sould one halfe of her to Willm Parsons of Boston and reced satisfacion for it (as the hon^d Gou^rno^r & others who were Arbitrato^rs between them can testify) And the Appealant likewise denied at the same time & before sd Arbitrato^rs that the defend^t had neyther part or interest in the sd vessell: Soe that (if it could bee proved as it neuer yet was) The defend^t could haue noe part in the vessell pretended to bee built by his order. There being noe vessell yet built according to the first Jntentions or Dimensions.

Soe hoping and not Doubting but that this hon^rd Court & Jury will see and Consider the Righteousnes & equity of the Case leave it their wise Determination thereof And shall Remaine

	Yo^r humble Serv^tt
Boston 3^d Feb: 74	Roger Rose

The appeal was allowed to the Court of Assistants, where the jury “found for the Deffendant Costs of Court,” 34s. Records of Court of Assistants, i. 5.]

Parker ags^t Pearse

Noah Parker plaint. ags^t Sammuell Pearse Defend^t according to Attachm^t Dat. Septemb^r 16^th 1673. The pl^t withdrew his accion & the Court granted the Defend^t Fourteen Shillings two pence costs

Execucion issued 11 9^br 1673

Oxenbridge &^a ags^t Hayden

John Oxenbridge James Allen & Anthony Stoddard Exec^rs to the Last will & Testam^t of Richard Bellingham Esquire deceased plaint^s against Ebenezer Hayden Defend^t in an accion of debt for five yeeres rent due for a Shop hee held of the s^d Bellingham with all other due damages according to Attachm^t Dat. Iuly 25^th 1673. . . the Iury . . . founde for the Defend^t costs of Court.

Phillips ags^t Hawthorn

Zachariah Phillips plaint, ags^t John Hawthorn Defend^t according to Attachm^t Dat 24 7^mo 1673. The plaint. upon non appearance was non Suited.

Yeale ags^t Shoare

Timothy Yeales plaint. ags^t Ionathan Shoare Defend^t in an accion of debt upon the forfiture of a bill of ten pounds for non paiment of a debt of five pounds in mony as appeares by the s^d bill & due damages according to Attachm^t dat. Octob^r 22^th 1673 . . . the Iury . . . founde for the plaint, five pounds in mony & costs of Court, the Defend^t appealed from the judgment of this Court to the next Court of Assistants. [168] And the s^d Ionathan Shoare as principall in ten pounds & Sampson Shoare sen^r & Iohn Hawthorn as Sureties in five pounds apeice acknowledged themselves respectively bound to . . . prosecute his appeale . . .

[S. F. 1278

Jonathan Shoare his resons of Apeale from the County Court in boston, the last October, vnto the Court of Assistance next, in the cause between himselfe and Timothy Yeale, are as followeth—

1: The bill of fiue pounds that the said Timothy sued for is made upon noe Consideration, and soe not sueable in the comon law, according as Information is giuen by the law or custom of the practis in England, and Indeed it is true, for Ther was noe consideration that the said bill was made upon which is the secound reson: namlye: if it was not made in consideration as in the secound reson—

2: That this said bill was obtained in a clandestin waye by flatterye &c: for the said Timothy hath a Couenant of the said Shoar for forty od pounds, to doe a parcell of work, in finishing of the frame of a house, now the said Shoare did euer vnderstand that this bill notwithstanding soe obtained as abouesaid; was a part of this Couenant of forty od pounds about the said frame, but in the aforsaid County Court in boston in open Court, when it was said by the defendant Shoare; then: that this bill was part of the forty od pounds in the aforsaid Couenant, the said Timothy denyed, that this bill was noe part of the said forty od pounds, now the said Shoare had noe other dealings with the said Timothy and denying this to he any part of the aforsaid Coupnant nor can the said Timothy say for any other cause or consideration that this said bill is forr and that the said Shoare is condemable by the Common law for the whole Couenant, notwithstanding,: soe that the said Timothy obtaineing this bill (for the end aforsaid as the said Shoare at first thought, and the said Timothy denying of it, the said Shoare is therby deceiued of his equall & Just right, and the said Timothy hath tow obligations for one thing which the said Shoare humbly relyeth vpon this Honored Court for theire serious consideration off: this 24 of February 1673:

Jonathan Shore

These Reasons were received February 26^th 1673

Per Js^a Addington Cler

When the action of the appeal was called at the Court of Assistants, both parties appearing “and owning that they were agreed,” the case was dismissed. Records of Court of Assistants, i. 9.]

Hudson ags^t Atherton

Cap^t William Hudson plaint. ags^t the goods or Estate which formerly belonged to Majo^r gen^ll Humphry Atherton deceased now in the hands of the adm^rs to the s^d goods or Estate Defend^t according to Attachm^t Dat Iuly 23^th 1673 by continuance from the Last County Court. The plaint, upon non appearance was Non suited.

Hudson ags^t Davenport

Cap^t William Hudson plaint. ags^t the goods debts or Estate which formerly belonged to Cap^t Richard Davenport deceased now in the hands of the adm^re to the s^d Estate Defend^t according to Attachm^t Dat. May 28^th 1673 by continuance from the Last County Court. The plaint, upon non appearance was non Suited.

Richards Fin^d 13^s 4^d

William Richards of Weymouth not appearing to Serve on the Grand jury according to Summons was fined thirteen Shillings & four pence in mony to the County.

Benson Fin^d 5^s

Iohn Benson of Hull not appearing to Serve on the Jury of tryalls according to Summons was Fin^d ten Shillings in mony to the County. hee afterwards appearing & making his plea the Court remitt^d five Shillings of his Fine.

Harding Fin^d 10^s & remitted

Iohn Harding of Meadfeilde not appearing to Serve as aboue was Fined ten Shillings in mony to the County. vpon his peticion the Court remitted his Fine.

Dyven to Clarke Esq^r

John Dyven of Hammersmith neere Lynn personally appeared in Court & acknowledged a judgm^t ags^t himselfe & Estate to Majo^r Thomas Clarke Esq^r for Fifteen pounds twelve Shillings in mony. as Attests Isaac Addington Cler.

Execution issued Feb^r 13^o 1678

Kent to Wensley

William Kent personally appeared in Court & acknowledged a judgment against himselfe & Estate to Iohn Winsley Merchant for Sixteen pounds Eleven Shillings & sixpence according to bill in mony. as Attests Isaac Addington Cler.

Taylor to Kent

Caleb Taylor personally appeared in Court & acknowledged a judgment against himselfe & Estate for Sixteen pounds eleven Shillings & six pence in mony [169] unto William Kent as Attests Isaac Addington Cler.

Execucion issued 8^br 31 1673

Norman to Woodmansey

Thomas Norman personally appeared in Court & acknowledged a Judgment against himselfe & Estate unto Iohn Woodmansey for ten pounds according to an Award of Arbitracion. as Attests Isaac Addington Cler.

Execucion issued X^br 8 1673

Turno^r to Shaw

Increase Turno^r personally appeared in Court & acknowledged a judgment against himselfe & Estate unto Ioseph Shaw for thirty pounds in mony. as Attests Isaac Addington Cler.

Bowles discharg^d from treyning

Iohn Bowles sen^r of Roxberry upon his peticion to this Court was discharged from Ordinary Treynings.

Grand jury discharged

The Grand jury brought in theire bill of presentments Octob^r 29^th 1673 & were discharged.

Penniman purged by Oath

Iames Penniman being accused & bound over to this Court to Answer for his selling strong Liquo^rs to an Indian named Thomas Boson; purged himselfe by his Oath according to Law.

Tolman Fin^d 2^s 6^d

Thomas Tolman one of the Iury of tryalls not attending the Service of the Court when called for was Fin^d twenty Shillings in mony to the County, afterwards appearing & making his excuse The Court remitted his fine to two Shillings & six pence

Gilford present^d

Paul Gilford being presented by the Grand jury for bruitish & uncivill carriages & noe Evidence appearing against him was discharged.

Thaxter &^a Fin^d & remitted

Ensigne Iohn Thaxter Thomas Sayer Dan^ll Howard & Ieremiah Beales Iun^r all of Hingham being legally Summoned to give in Evidence to a presentm^t against Paul Gilford & not appearing upon due calling were fined ten Shillings apeice in mony to the County. afterward appearing & making theire excuse The Court remitted theire Fines.

Belcher bound over to y^e next County Court

Iohn Belcher of Brantery being bound to the good behavio^r by the last County Court untill this Court & then appearing & desiring proclamacion to bee made for his discharge; It was Objected hee had broken his bond vpon which the Court Ordered him to give bond to appeare at the next County Court to Answer it & Ordered a Summons to bee issued out for Christopher Webb & In^o Hayden then to appeare to give in Evidence against him accordingly the s^d In^o Belcher as principall in ten pounds & Gregory Belcher & Ioseph Belcher as Sureties in 5^li apeice acknowledged themselves respectiuely bound to the Treasuro^r of y^e County of Suffolke on condicion that s^d In^o Belcher should then appeare & abide the Ord^r of y^e Court. [170]

Hearst Sworn a Freeman

William Hearsy of Hingham tooke the Oath of Freedom of this Colony.

Lincoln Fin^d 6^s

Sammuell Lincoln of Hingham being presented by the Grand jury for receiving goods that were stoln from him contrary unto Law, of which hee was convict by his own confession in Court: The Court Sentenc^d him to pay six Shillings in mony as a fine to the County & Fees of Court with charge of prosecution standing committed untill the Sentence been performed.

In^o Cooke Fin^d 4^li ½ rebated

In^o Cooke of Mendon bound over to this Court to answer for his assailing & wounding Sammuell Holbrooke upon the highway of which hee was convict in Court. The Court Sentenc^d him to bee whipt with fifeteen Stripes or to pay four pounds in mony as a fine to the County w^th charge of prosecution & Fees of Court standing committed untill the Sentence bee performed. Vpon the peticion of his Father Walter Cooke The Court remitted halfe the fine imposed on his Son Iohn.

Cooke Fin^d 4^li ½ rebated

Sammuell Cooke bound over & convict as aboue: The Court Sentenced him to bee whip’t with fifeteen Stripes or to pay four pounds in mony as a fine to the County w^th charge of prosecution & fees of Court standing committed untill the Sentence bee performed Vpon the peticion of his Father Walter Cooke The Court remitted halfe the Fine imposed on his Son Sammuell.

Wampus admonisht

Anne Wampus bound over to this Court to Answer for abuseing & strikeing of her husband The Court vpon giving of her an admonition Ordered her to pay Fees of Court & soe discharged her.

Dudly Find 10^s

Francis Dudly bound over to this Court to Answer for his Fighting & quarrelling with Ioseph Knight of which hee was convict in Court The Court Sentenced him to pay ten Shillings in mony as a fine to the County & Fees of Court standing committed untill the Sentence bee performed.

Knight Fin^d 10^s

Ioseph Knight bound over to this Court to Answer for his fighting & quarrelling with Francis Dudly of w^ch hee was convict in Court The Court Sentenc^d him to pay ten Shillings in mony as a fine to the County & Fees of Court standing committed untill the Sentence bee performed. Ioseph Knight Appealed from the Sentence of this Court to the next Court of Assistants & gave bond to prosecute his Appeale to Effect.

Graves Fin^d 10^s

Benjamin Graves bound over to this Court to Answer for his fighting & quarrelling with Ioseph Knight of which hee was convict in Court. The Court Sentenc^d [171] him to pay ten Shillings in mony as a fine to the County & Fees of Court standing committed untill the Sentence bee perform^d

Read Sworn a Freeman

Sammuell Read of Mendum tooke the Oath of Freedom of this Iurisdiction.

Sarah Scot

Vpon due proclamacion made Sarah Scot was discharged from her bonds of good behavio^r

Iames Harris

Vpon Like proclamacion made, Iames Harris was discharged from his bonds of good behavio^r

Eliz^a Salter

Vpon Like proclamacion made Elizabeth the wife of Iabesh Salter was discharged from her bonds of good behavio^r

Mehetable Salter & Mary Wheeler

Vpon Like proclamacion made Mehetable Salter & Mary Wheeler were discharged from theire bonds of good behavio^r

Ioyes presentm^t Owned

Thomas Ioy being presented for digging through the highway which Lieth against the s^d Ioyes dwelling house in Boston, whereby its made dangerous for man & beast The Court Orders that the s^d Ioy doe well & suffitiently repaire the s^d way to the approbacion of Majo^r Thomas Clarke Esq^r Cap^t Thomas Lake & m^r Jn^o Richards within fourteen dayes next following upon penalty of twenty pounds to bee forfited to the Treasuro^r of this County & to pay Fees of Court.

Milton presentm^t

The Town of Milton being presented for neglecting theire duty in making a suffitient highway comming down the hill neere the Indian gate; as also for neglecting to mend the way through Robert Vosses Farme: The Court Orders that the Town of Milton repaire both the s^d highwaies w^thin Fourteen dayes next following upon the penalty of five pounds to bee forfited by the s^d Town to the Treasuro^r of this County & to pay Fees of Court.

Henchers discharge

Vpon due proclamacion made Daniell Hencher was discharged of his bonds of good behavio^r

Silvesters discharge

Richard Silvester was also on due proclamacion discharg^d from his bonds of good behavio^r

Silvest^r Sent^a

Dinah Silvester bound over to this Court to Answer for her committing of Fornicacion & haveing a bastard Childe not being in a marriage state; which Shee Owned in Court, chargeing Ionathan Badcock to bee the Father thereof & s^d hee had fellowship with her but once & that it was in Octob^r 1672. The Court Sentenced her to bee whip’t severely with twenty Stripes immediately after the next Lecture in Boston, & then to bee sent home to Milton & there to bee severely whip’t with twenty Stripes by the Constable of the Town or some other person whome hee may procure in presence of [172] the Select men or some of them, to bee done within one month after her first whipping & to pay Fees of Court standing committed untill the Sentence bee performed.

Lorin Fin^d 40^s

Iohn Lorin bound over to this Court to Answer for his misdemeanor in riding upon his Cart & driving his Cart upon or against the wife of Iohn Iones of Charlestown, whereby She received hurt of which hee was convict in Court. The Court Sentenc^d the s^d Lorin to pay Forty Shillings in mony as a fine to the County & Fees of Court & Leaue the party wronged to her due course in Law; as also the Select men of Boston to prosecute him for breach of Town Ord^r

Dare Fin^d 3^li

William Dare bound over to this Court to Answer for his wounding of Edward Gregory in the Shoulder by discharging a fowling peece Loaden with small Shot against him which hee Owned in Court; but it appearing to bee but accidentall & the person wounded being since recovered: The Court Sentenc^d the s^d Dare to pay three pounds in mony as a Fine to the County & Fees of Court standing committed untill the Sentence bee performed; Leaving the party wronged to his due course in Law against him

Davis whip^t

Stephen Davis bound over to this Court to Answer for his committing Fornicacion with Sarah Francis; which hee Owned in Court: The Court Sentenc^d him to bee whip’t with twenty Stripes & to pay Fees of Court standing committ^d untill the Sentence bee performed.

Tho: Williams Fin^d 10^s

Thomas Williams bound over to this Court to Answer for his giveing mony to Iohn Billington in Order to the rescuing of Mary Forrest out of the Prison in Boston which hee Owned in Court: The Court Sentenc^d him to pay ten Shillings in mony as a Fine to the County and Fees of Court Standing committ^d untill the Sentence bee performed.

Billington Fin^d 10^s

Iohn Billington bound over to this Court to Answer for his attempting & Endeavouring the Escape of Mary Forrest a prison^r out of the prison in Boston; which hee confessed in Court: The Court Sentenc^d the s^d Billington to pay ten Shillings in mony as a Fine to the County & Fees of Court standing committed untill the Sentence bee perform^d

Robinsons Guardⁿ

Mary Robinson appeared in Court Nov^r 3, 1673 & made choise of m^r Ioseph Rock to bee her guardian which hee accepted & the Court allowed of.

Pollee Sent^a

Ioseph Pollee convict in Court of stealing severall parcells of Linnen from m^r Iohn Saffin m^r Tho Kellond, Mary Hawkins & Ruth Marshall: The Court Senten^cd him to bee [173] severely whip’t with twenty Stripes & to pay unto m^r Iohn Saffin Eighteen pounds three Shillings & four pence to m^r Tho: Kellond ten pounds & four Shillings, to Mary Hawkins & Ruth Marshall four pounds being that threefold restitucion that the Law requires, the s^d Saffin Kellond Hawkins and Marshall to pay charges of prosecution & Fees of Court and prizon, hee s^d Pollee standing committed untill the Sentence bee performed.

Hoppins Sent^a

Stephen Hoppin convict in Court of stealing several parcells of Linnen from m^r Iohn Saffine m^r Thomas Kellond, Mary Hawkins & Ruth Marshall The Court Sentenc^d him to bee severely whip’t with twenty Stripes & to pay unto m^r John Saffin Eighteen pounds three Shillings & four pence to m^r Tho: Kellond ten pounds four Shillings to Mary Hawkins & Ruth Marshall four pounds; being that threefold restitution that the Law requires, the s^d Saffin Kellond Hawkins & Marshall to pay charges of prosecution Fees of Court & prizon, he s^d Hoppin standing committed untill the Sentence bee performed.

Grinings Sent^a

Anthony Grining convict in Court of stealing severall parcells of Linnen from m^r Iohn Saffine m^r Thomas Kellond Mary Hawkins & Ruth Marshall: The Court Sentenc^d him to bee severely whip’t with twenty Stripes & to pay unto m^r John Saffin Eighteen pounds three Shillings & four pence to m^r Tho: Kellond ten pounds four Shillings, to Mary Hawkins & Ruth Marshall four pounds; being that threefold restitution that the Law requires, the s^d Saffin Kellond Hawkins & Marshall to pay charges of prosecution Fees of Court & prizon hee s^d Grining standing committed untill the Sentence bee performed.

Hannah Hoppin whip’t

Hannah Hoppin convict in Court by her own confession of receiving severall of the stoln goods aboues^d of her Son & others, which were founde in her custody & Shee flying upon it: The Court Sentenc^d her to bee severely whip’t w^th Fifteen Stripes & to pay charge of prosecution & Fees of Court & prizon Standing committed untill the Sentence bee performed.

Hencher Fin^d 10^s

Daniell Hencher of Milton presented for Swearing hee Owned the presentment in Court: The Court Sentenc^d him to pay ten Shillings in mony as a Fine to the County with charge of prosecution & Fees of Court standing committed untill the Sentence bee performed.

Duey’s Sent^a

William Duey a portugeez convict by his own confession in Court of stealing severall wearing apparrell from m^r Iohn Sharpe, as also from Jacob Milborn [174] for whome s^d Sharpe is Attourny) valued at three pounds & from Augustin Williams five pounds Sixteen Shillings The Court Sentenc^d the s^d Duey to bee whip’t with twenty Stripes & to return to m^r John Sharpe his goods againe & to pay him s^d Sharpe six pounds: & to return unto Augustin Williams his mony againe & what goods hee hath bought with any part thereof & to pay him the s^d Williams or his Attourny the Summe of twelve pounds twelve Shillings, being that threefold restitution that the Law requires; s^d Duey to bee Sold for the Satisfaction of the same & the mony to bee devided between the parties according to proporcion they paying charges of prosecucion & Fees of Court, hee standing committed untill the Sentence bee performed

Davis Fin^d 40^s

Sammuell Davis bound over to this Court to Answer for his Selling strong beere to the Indians in the Common on the 9^th of Iune Last, which hee Owned in Court: The Court Sentenc^d him to pay Forty Shillings in mony as a fine to the County & Fees of Court, standing committed untill the Sentence bee performed.

Shoare Fin^d 20^s & 15^s thereof remitted

Ionathan Shoare bound over to this Court to Answer for his selling or delivering strong beere to an Indian in the Common on the 9^th of Iune Last: denied that hee either Sold or delivered any strong beere to an Indian: but Owned that hee sold strong beere in the Common on the s^d day: The Court Sentenced him to pay twenty Shillings in mony as a Fine to the County & Fees of Court standing committed untili the Sentence bee perform^d vpon his humble peticion The Court remitted Fifteen Shillings of the s^d Fine.

Gross Fined 20^s

Ellinor Gross bound over to this Court to Answer for her receiving of stoln goods which were found in her custody Owned in Court that those things were founde with her & Shee bought them of Benjamin Gold; which things were vallued at twenty Shillings & delivered to Good wife Gold from whome they were stoln: The Court Sentenc^d s^d Gross to bee set in the Stocks for one hour & to bee whip’t with ten Stripes or to pay twenty Shillings in mony as a fine to the County & Fees of Court standing committed untili the Sentence bee performed.

King Fin^d 40^s

Abigail King bound over to this Court to Answer for her being taken abroad at an unseasonable time of the night by the watch, at which time Shee was in drinck & entertaining mens Servants & others at the [175] same time at her house a drincking of which Shee was convict in Court: The Court Sentenc^d her to pay Forty Shillings in mony as a Fine to the County & Fees of Court standing committed untili the Sentence bee performed.

Smiths Sentⁿ

Ioseph Smith bound over to this Court to Answer for his being founde by the watch in the house of Abigail King in Boston amongst others at an unseasonable time of the night, where they had been drincking, of which hee was convict in Court: The Court haveing considered of his offence herein & his night walking Sentenc^d him to bee sent to the house of correction or to pay twenty Shillings in mony as a fine to the County & Fees of Court Standing committed untill the Sentence bee performed: Ioseph Smith appealed to the next Court of Assistants & the s^d Smith as principall in ten pounds & Richard Brookes & W^m Gilbert as Sureties in five pounds apeice acknowledged themselves respectively bound to . . . prosecute his appeale . . . & that in the meane time hee should bee of good behavio^r

Stasey Fin^d 20^s

Iohn Stasey bound over to this Court to Answer for his being founde by the watch in the house of Abigail King in Boston amongst others at an unseasonable time of the night, where they had been drincking of which hee was convict in Court The Court Sentenc^d him for his night walking & other disord^rs to bee sent to the house of correction or to pay twenty Shillings in mony as a Fine to the County & Fees of Court standing committed untill the Sent^t bee perform^d

Eggerton Fin^d 40^s

Peter Eggerton bound over to this Court to Answer for his abuseing Cap^t Iohn Wiborn & instigating others with himselfe to assaile & beate the s^d Wiborn of which hee was convict in Court The Court Sentenc^d him to pay three pounds in mony as a Fine to the County with charge of prosecution & Fees of Court & to give in bond w^th Sureties of Forty pounds for the good behavio^r till the next Court of this County standing committed untill the Sentence bee performed Vpon his humble peticion the Court afterwards remitted twenty Shillings of his Fine: And the s^d Eggerton as principal in twenty pounds & John Morss & John Buttolph as Sureties in 10^li apeice acknowledged themselves respectiuely bound to the Treasuro^r of the County of Suffolke on condicion that the s^d Eggerton should bee of good behavio^r till the next Court of this County & then appeare [176]

Peggy Fin^d 20^s

Edward Peggy bound over to this Court to answer for his assailing & beating Cap^t Iohn Wiborn of which hee was convict in Court The Court Sentenc^d him to pay twenty Shillings in mony as a Fine to the County with charges of prosecution & Fees of Court & to give in bond w^th Sureties of Forty pounds for his good behavio^r till the next Court of this County standing committed untill the Sentence bee performed & accordingly the s^d Peggy as principall in twenty pounds & Roger Dubledee & Henry Dedicot as Sureties in ten pounds apeice acknowledged themselves bound to the Treasuro^r of the County of Suffolke on condicion the s^d Edward Peggy shalbee of good behavio^r till the next Court of this County & then appeare if in the Country.

Smith Fin^d 40^s

Ioseph Smith bound over to this Court to Answer as aboues^d The Court Sentenc^d him to pay Forty Shillings in mony as a Fine to the County with charge of prosecution & Fees of Court & to give in bond w^th Sureties of Forty pounds for his good behavio^r till the next Court of this County standing committed untill the Sentence bee performed & the s^d Joseph Smith as principall in twenty pounds & Joseph Webb & Peter Goulding as Sureties in ten pounds apeice acknowledged themselves respectiuely bound to the Treasure^r of the County of Suffolke on condicion the s^d Smith should bee of good behavio^r untill the next Court of this County & then appeare.

Salmon discharged

Clemont Salmon bound over to this Court to Answer for his abuseing of the watch in Boston, it not being proved against him hee was discharged

Hickson Fin^d 40^s

Walter Hickson bound over to this Court to Answer for his railing & scurrilous Language & Swearing of all which hee was convict in Court The Court Sentenc^d him to bee whip’t with fifeteen Stripes or to pay Forty Shillings in mony as a Fine to the County & Fees of Court standing committed untill the Sentence bee perform^d

Bedwell Fin^d 40^s

Mary Bedwell bound over to this Court to Answer for her railing & scurrilous Language & bad Speeches of which Shee was convict in Court The Court Sentenc^d her to bee whip’t with fifteen Stripes or to pay Forty Shillings in mony as a Fine to the County & Fees of Court standing committed untill the Sentence bee performed [177]

Marsh Sent^a

Iohn Marsh bound over to this Court to answer for his concealing or conveying away severall hides of Leather being seized by the Sealers of Leather in Boston in his custody & hee promising to Secure them for the Sealers, all which hee owned in Court, onely s^d the Owner of the hides fetcht them away: The Court Sentenc^d him to return the same hides soe seized unto the s^d Sealers of Leather or in default thereof to pay them six pounds in mony & Fees of Court.

Alice Thomas respited

Alice Thomas being presented by the grand jury & summon^d to attend this Court to Answer the same, Shee being called answer was made Shee was soe Lame as disinabled her for comming; vpon which the Court respites the presentm^t till the next Court of this County.

Gillian Knite respited

Gillian the wife of Richard Knite being also presented by the grand jury & called to answer the same, answer was made Shee was very sick in bed, upon which the Court respited her presentment till the next Court of this County

Wing Fin^d 5^li

Ioseph Wing & Iohanna his wife being both bound over to this Court, to answer for theire committing of Fornication before marriage, of which they were convict by theire own confession in Court The Court Sentenc^d them both to bee whip’t, the s^d Ioseph with twenty Stripes & Iohanna with ten, or to pay five pounds in mony as a Fine to the County with Fees of Court standing committed untill the Sentence bee performed.

Halls Sent^a

William Hall convict by his own confession in Court of stealing severall goods out of the house of William Long in Boston belonging to the s^d Long & others (for whome hee is Attourny) to the vallue of six pounds; The Court Sentenc^d the s^d Hall to bee severely whipped with twenty stripes & to return to William Long the goods stoln againe as also to pay the s^d Long in behalfe of himselfe & the rest concerned the Summe of twelue pounds, being that threefold restitution that the Law requires hee the s^d Long paying thereout y^e charge of prosecution & Fees of Court s^d Hall standing committed untill the Sentence bee performed.

Vring admonisht

William Vring being committed for being confederate with William Hall in stealing goods out of the house of William Long, hee haveing absented himselfe w^ch gaue matter of suspicion thereof, but the Fact not being proved The Court Sentenc^d him to bee admonished & to pay Fees of Court & prizon standing committed untill the Sentence bee performed. [178]

Leaders Sent^a

Thomas Leader convict in Court for stealing mony & other things from Sarah Phippeny to the vallue of eight shillings & four pence breaking open her box in the house of his master William English in Boston on the Sabbath day The Court Sentenced him to bee whip’t with fifteen stripes & to pay unto Sarah Phippeny five & twenty Shillings in mony being that threefold restitution that the Law requires & to pay Fees of Court standing committed untill the Sentence bee performed.

Doily discharg^d

Iohn Doily of Brantery being presented for selling Liquo^rs & Sider to the Indians The presentm^t not being proved hee was discharged.

Mary Plum present^d

Mary Plum the daughter of Iohn Plum, being present^d for haveing a Childe it not appearing Shee was ever married & a Summons goeing out for her appearance at the Court to answer for the same, The Constable made return hee could not finde her.

Hudson Leveretts Fine remitted

In Answer to the petition of Hudson Leverett The Court was pleased to remit the Fine of one hundred pounds to the County, imposed on him by the last Court of this County.

Holts bond Forfited

Thomas Holt, not appearing upon due calling to Answer according to his bond, both his & his Sureties bond was declared forfited.

Wilmots bond Forfited

Nicholas Wilmot not appearing upon due calling to Answer accarding to his bond Dated 27 8^mo 1673. The Court declared his bond forfited.

Bradly’s bond Forfited

Richard Bradley not appearing upon due calling to answer according to his bond Dated 27 8^mo 1673. The Court declared his bond forfited.

The Court adjourned to Novemb^r 6^th 1673. at nine a clock in the Morning. [179]

Novemb^r 6^th 1673

The Court met according to Adjournment

Present 1673

In^o Leverett Esq^r Go:
Simon Bradstreet Esq^r	W^m Stoughton Esq^r
Edw: Tyng Esq^r	Tho^s Clarke Esq^r

Golds bond remitted upon paim^t of 40^s

In answer to the petition of Mary Gold, The Court (upon the s^d Mary her paying of Forty Shillings in mony to the Treasuro^r of the County of Suffolke) remitted the forfiture of a bond of five pounds declared against her Son Benjamin Gold & her Son in Law Sammuell Greenwood at the last Court of this County.

Smith Fin^d 5^li

Christopher Smith bound over to this Court to answer for his selling of brandy & strong beere without Licence which hee Owned in Court. The Court Sentenc^d him to pay five pounds in mony as a Fine to the County & Fees of Court standing committed untill the Sentence bee perform^d

Court Order ab^t Birds

Whereas there is a motion made to this Court by Thomas Bird of Dorchester for the division of the Estate of his Late mother, wherein hee & his bretheren cannot agree among themselves: The Court Orders & appoints that Thomas Iohn & lames Bird appeare before this Court this day Seven night after Lecture upon theire adjourment to give theire severall reasons & pleas upon that Account & hereof not to faile Dated in Boston this 6^th of 9^br 1673.

Court Order to m^r Gibbs

The Court Orders that m^r Benjamin Gibbs attend this Court upon theire adjournment on thursday next to answer a complaint exhibited against him by Henry Ashton.

Court Order for Bradish

The Court Orders that Cap^t Thomas Savage & m^r Peter Bracket who haue rendred an Account to this Court of the Estate of the Late widow Bradish deceased, which is in theire hands by vertue of an order of Generall Court) doe forthwith pay thereout unto Iohn Bradish her sonn three pounds & Fourteen Shillings being for Funerall charges according to his Account given into this Court.

The Court Adjourned to Thursday the 13^th of Novemb^r at nine a clock in the morning. [180]

Novemb^r 13^th 1673

The Court met according to Adjournment.

Present

	Simon Bradstreet
In^o Leverett Esq^r Go^r	Edw: Tyng
	W^m Stoughton
	Tho: Clarke

Court Ord^r ab^t Bradishes Estate

Vpon the motion of Iohn Bradish one of the administrato^rs to the Estate belonging to his Late mother Vasthi Bradish deceased; The Court Orders that Cap^t Thomas Savage & m^r Peter Bracket deliver the Estate of the s^d Vasthi Bradishes in theire hands (according to theire Account delivered into Court) unto the Administrato^rs to the s^d Estate, they giving them a discharge for the same & being accountable to the Court of this County wⁿ called to it,

Freemen Sworn

M^r Peter Lidget m^r Sammuell Shrimpton & m^r Eliakim Hutchinson tooke the Oath of Freedom of this Colony.

Court Ord^r upon m^r Rocks Acco^t

This Court having perused the Account given into Court upon Oath by m^r Ioseph Rock 31^th of Ianuary 1672 concerning the late Estate of m^r Iohn & m^rs Martha Coggan deceased & what that Estate stands charged with by him; as also the Objections made against that Account & his Answer thereunto: The Court on due consideracion of the same doe take off & rebate the Summe of Seventy eight pounds fifteen Shillings from m^r Rocks charge of debt made against the s^d Estate in that Account which Summe of Seventy eight pounds fifteen shillings being added to two hundred Sixty nine pounds eighteen shillings four pence; which hee makes to bee the ballance of that Account as soe much due from him to that Estate, makes up the Summe of three hundred Forty eight pounds thirteen shillings & four pence The Court Orders & appoints m^r Ioseph Rock to pay in mony or such pay as is equivalent thereunto unto the Guardians of the Children of the late m^r Thomas Robbinson; as also to pay to the s^d guardians what rent or other incomes are due to that Estate since his Account made up, which hee hath received, in the same specie hee received it; & m^r Rock fulfilling this Order is discharged from his administration.

[This Order is “explained” at a later session of 1674, p. 437, below.]

Division of Birds Estate

Upon the motion of Thomas Bird to this Court for a dividend of the Estate left by his late mother Anne Bird of Dorchester Widow deceased (who dyed intestate) [181] between her three onely Children, being all Sonns: The Court haveing given the other two Sonns oppertunity to present what they could in reference to theire interest in or claime to s^d Estate & haveing heard & considered what was presented in the case Doe Order that the s^d Estate bee devided into two equall parts, the s^d Thomas Bird being the eldest Sonn to have the one part thereof & the other part to bee equally devided between the two younger bretheren.

Division of Increase Athertons Estate

Upon the motion of the Children of Majo^r Gen^ll Humphry Atherton to this Court concerning a dividend of the Estate of theire late brother Increase Atherton deceased The Court Orders that all just debts & necessary charges being first paide & discharged, the s^d Estate bee equally devided amongst the Surviving Children of the s^d Majo^r Atherton.

Court Order ab^t Bernards Adm^rs

The Court Orders & appoints that the Administrato^rs to the Estate of the late Sammuell Bernard deceased as also m^r Iohn Hayward & y^e s^d m^r Bernards daughter attend the next Court of this County to give in an Account of saide Estate

Court Ord^r ab^t Milton highway respited

The Court respites the Order upon the return of the Committee about a highway in Milton passed the last County Court & Order that notice bee given to the persons concerned therein & also to the s^d Committee to attend the next Court of this County.

m^r Gibbs bond

M^r Benjamin Gibbs as principall in one hundred pounds & Wm Dawes & Richard Knight as Sureties in Fifty pounds apeice acknowledged themselves respectiuely bound in Court to the Treasuro^r of the County of Suffolke on condicion that hee the s^d Benjamin Gibbs should personally appeare at the next Court of this County to answer the charge exhibited against him at this Court by m^r Henry Ashton & that hee should abide the Order of the Court therein: And L^t Richard Way as Attourny to s^d Ashton obliged himselfe in open Court then to appeare & prosecute the s^d charge.

[In connection with the Ketch Recovery cases.]

Court Order ab^t Holdbrookes Estate

In Answer to the petition of Miriam Holdbrooke Widow The Court Orders that the s^d Widow haue the bed Shee lyeth on & the Furniture belonging to it & Forty Shillings out of the Estate of her late husband Daniell Holdbrooke deceased in movables & that Deacon Parcke & m^r Thomas Weld bee a Committee to set out the rest of that Estate to the Credito^rs according [182] to proporcion between this & the next Court of this County & then to make a return of what they doe therein.

Court Order ab^t Manaticot Bridge

The Court Orders the Select men of Brantery forthwith to build a Substantiall horsebridge over Manaticot River in the way from Brantery to Weymouth by the next Court of this County upon the penalty of ten pounds & then to bring in theire Account of charge & the Court will consider thereof whether it bee to bee born by the Town or the County.

Court Ord^r ab^t Silvest^rs charge

The Court Orders & appoints that the Select men of Milton pay unto William Salter the summe of seven & Forty Shillings for charges about Dinah Silvester during her imprisonment Lying in there & providing cloathing for her Childe, unless they can finde an Estate of hers to Satisfy it.

Peck &^a ag^t Page vid: p. 146

Thomas Peck & Iohn Heyman or either of them plaint^s ag^t Iohn Page Defend^t in an accion of the case for breaking his Engagement of One hundred pounds by exchange of a peece of mony sterling in that the s^d Page hath not performed an Award under the hand of Leiftenant Richard Cooke & Iohn Williams bearing date the 23 day of Iuly 1672 & other due damages according to Attachm^t Dat. May 15^th 1673. This Accion was tryed the last County Court but judgment not Entred till this Court according to Law the Defendant being out of this Iurisdiction: . . . The Iury . . . founde for the plaint. one hundred pounds according to bond & costs of Court.

This Court dissolved Novemb^r 13^th 1673

Present Simon Bradstreet Edward Tyng and Tho: Clarke Esq^rs Ianuary 20^th 1673@

Atkinson to Penn

Theoder Atkinson jun^r personally appeared & acknowledged a judgment against himselfe & Estate for Fifty nine pounds in mony (due to the Estate of the Late Elder lames Penn) to the Widow & present Executrix of the last will of s^d Penn. as Attests Js^a Addington

Cler	£:59:0:0: mony

m^r Anth^o Stoddard personally appeared Nov^r 19:1674 & acknowledged that hee had rec^d full Satisfaction of this Iudgm^t in behalfe of m^rs Penn as Attests Js^a Addington Cler [183]

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 Octobr 28th 1673

Present

Iury of Tryalls Sworn

[Hoare v. Atkinson et al.]

[Carver v. Wright et al.]

[Peck v. Lawton et al.]

Salter agst Davis

Sandys agst Mott

Risco agst Miller

Parker agst Corbyn

Long agst French

Bernard agst Cock

Holbrooke agst Mason

Joy agst Adkins

Scottow agst Felton

Hiskett agst Paine

Bartholmew &a agst Ashton

Leverett agst Hudson

Russell agst Hudson

Hudson agst Leverett

Brackenbury agst Welch

Pincheon agst Collecott

Clarke agst Harris

Thayre agst Rose

Parker agst Pearse

Oxenbridge &a agst Hayden

Phillips agst Hawthorn

Yeale agst Shoare

Hudson agst Atherton

Hudson agst Davenport

Richards Find 13s 4d

Benson Find 5s

Harding Find 10s & remitted

Dyven to Clarke Esqr

Kent to Wensley

Taylor to Kent

Norman to Woodmansey

Turnor to Shaw

Bowles dischargd from treyning

Grand jury discharged

Penniman purged by Oath

Tolman Find 2s 6d

Gilford presentd

Thaxter &a Find & remitted

Belcher bound over to ye next County Court

Hearst Sworn a Freeman

Lincoln Find 6s

Ino Cooke Find 4li ½ rebated

Cooke Find 4li ½ rebated

Wampus admonisht

Dudly Find 10s

Knight Find 10s

Graves Find 10s

Read Sworn a Freeman

Sarah Scot

Iames Harris

Eliza Salter

Mehetable Salter & Mary Wheeler

Ioyes presentmt Owned

Milton presentmt

Henchers discharge

Silvesters discharge

Silvestr Senta

Lorin Find 40s

Dare Find 3li

Davis whipt

Tho: Williams Find 10s

Billington Find 10s

Robinsons Guardn

Pollee Senta

Hoppins Senta

Grinings Senta

Hannah Hoppin whip’t

Hencher Find 10s

Duey’s Senta

Davis Find 40s

Shoare Find 20s & 15s thereof remitted

Gross Fined 20s

King Find 40s

Smiths Sentn

At a County Court held at Boston Octob^r 28^th 1673

Salter ags^t Davis

Sandys ags^t Mott

Risco ags^t Miller

Parker ags^t Corbyn

Long ags^t French

Bernard ags^t Cock

Holbrooke ags^t Mason

Joy ags^t Adkins

Scottow ags^t Felton

Hiskett ags^t Paine

Bartholmew &^a ags^t Ashton

Leverett ags^t Hudson

Russell ags^t Hudson

Hudson ags^t Leverett

Brackenbury ags^t Welch

Pincheon ags^t Collecott

Clarke ags^t Harris

Thayre ags^t Rose

Parker ags^t Pearse

Oxenbridge &^a ags^t Hayden

Phillips ags^t Hawthorn

Yeale ags^t Shoare

Hudson ags^t Atherton

Hudson ags^t Davenport

Richards Fin^d 13^s 4^d

Benson Fin^d 5^s

Harding Fin^d 10^s & remitted

Dyven to Clarke Esq^r

Turno^r to Shaw

Bowles discharg^d from treyning

Tolman Fin^d 2^s 6^d

Gilford present^d

Thaxter &^a Fin^d & remitted

Belcher bound over to y^e next County Court

Lincoln Fin^d 6^s

In^o Cooke Fin^d 4^li ½ rebated

Cooke Fin^d 4^li ½ rebated

Dudly Find 10^s

Knight Fin^d 10^s

Graves Fin^d 10^s

Eliz^a Salter

Ioyes presentm^t Owned

Milton presentm^t

Silvest^r Sent^a

Lorin Fin^d 40^s

Dare Fin^d 3^li

Davis whip^t

Tho: Williams Fin^d 10^s

Billington Fin^d 10^s

Robinsons Guardⁿ

Pollee Sent^a

Hoppins Sent^a

Grinings Sent^a

Hencher Fin^d 10^s

Duey’s Sent^a

Davis Fin^d 40^s

Shoare Fin^d 20^s & 15^s thereof remitted

Gross Fined 20^s

King Fin^d 40^s

Smiths Sentⁿ

Stasey Fin^d 20^s

Eggerton Fin^d 40^s

Peggy Fin^d 20^s

Smith Fin^d 40^s

Hickson Fin^d 40^s

Bedwell Fin^d 40^s

Marsh Sent^a

Wing Fin^d 5^li

Halls Sent^a

Leaders Sent^a

Doily discharg^d

Mary Plum present^d

Novemb^r 6^th 1673

Golds bond remitted upon paim^t of 40^s

Smith Fin^d 5^li

Court Order ab^t Birds

Court Order to m^r Gibbs

Novemb^r 13^th 1673

Court Ord^r ab^t Bradishes Estate