At A County Court held at Boston 27th of October: 1674@

Present

Jn^o Leverett Esq^r Gov^r	Edward Tyng
Simon Bradstreet Esq^r	William Stoughton
	Majo^r Tho: Clarke

Grandjury the same wth the former Court Ferdinando Thayer added.

Jury of Tryalls Sworn

Cap^t Jn^o Hull	John Baker	John Ripley
James Whetcomb	Timothy Tylestone	Henry Wight
Nathan Raynsford	John Wales sen^r	Martin Phillips
John Polley	Robert Parmentor	Tho: Drake

Hoare v. Fogg]

William Hoare plaint. ags^t Ezekiel Fogg Defendant in an action of the case for his false & fraudulent dealing with & excessive over reaching the saide Hoar in the sale of a parcell of painting Stuffe & brushes chargeing them at an intollerable rate (viz) four or five times more then the worth of them & hath by flattering & insinuating discourse inticed the s^d Hoar being ignorant of the prizes of such things to give him a bill under his hand for the paiment of the saide mony & bread & after making Sale of part of the saide goods to his the saide Hoar’s great damage & other due damages according to Attachm^t Dat. October 14^th 1674.

. . . The Jury . . . founde for the plaint. damage Seven pound fourteen shillings six pence & the delivery of the goods to W^m Hoar according to Jnvoyce on pœnalty of ten pound ten shillings in mony to bee paide more then the Seven pounds fourteen Shillings six pence aboue expressed & costs of Court allowed by the Magistrates

Mosely ags^t Hobart

Richard Mosely, late Owner of one quarter part of the Ship golden Faukon Plaint. ags^t Josiah Hobart late Master of the saide Ship Defent^t in an action of the case for that the s^d Hobart doth neglect & refuse to give unto the s^d Mosely a just & true Accompt with the produce thereof for one quarter part of the profits or Earnings of s^d Ship made in a voyage or voyages from Barbados to New-England & from New-England to Barbados again since about January last was [271] twelve months, as hee the s^d Hobart was master of the s^d Ship & the saide Mosely a quarter part Owner as aforesaide; the nonperformance of which by the saide Hobart is to the plaintiffs damage to the Summe of one hundred pound with other due damages according to Attachm^t Dat: Septemb^r 3^d 1674. . . . The Jury . . . founde for the plaintife; viz: that Josiah Hobert render an Acco^t to the s^d plaintife once within twelve months or if s^d Hobart shall arrive in New-England sooner then within forty dayes after his saide arrivall on the pœnalty of Fifty pounds, by an Acco^t the Jury intends a true account & costs of Court allowed by the Court three & twenty shillings & ten pence.

Winslow ags^t Shakerly &^a

Richard Middlecut or John Williams Attournies to Samuell Winslow plaint. ags^t John Shackerly or Peter Jacobson Marius them or either of them Defendants, in an action of the case for witholding a debt of Forty eight pounds three Shillings & three pence Starling; which was to bee paide the one halfe in bread at Eleven shillings & six pence per hundred & the other halfe in Flower at ten Shillings six pence per hundred all which was to haue been delivered the saide Winslow at the Weigh house in new Orania or yorke672 upon the fourteenth day of August last past as will appeare by a bill under theire hands dated the eigth day of July 1674. wherein the saide John Shakerly and Peter Jacobson Marius are bound jointly & severally for the paiment of the abouesaide Summe in the species abouemention^d to the saide Winslow & due interest & all other due damages according to Attachm^t Dat. August 29^o 1674@ . . . The Jury . . . founde for the plaint. viz: the bill Forty eight pounds three Shillings three pence & damage for non paiment at time & place twenty five pound one shilling & costs of Court allowed by the Court. Nineteen Shillings. Robert Orchard as Surety for the. Defendant appealed from this Judgment unto the next Court of Assistants & the s^d Robert Orchard as principall in £:74 & Arthur Mason & Tho: Bingley as Sureties in £:37 apeice acknowledged themselves respectiuely bound to . . . prosecute his Appeale . . .

[See Records of the Court of Assistants, i. 29.]

Ball ag^t Rigbee

Francis Ball Plaint. ag^t Samuel Rigbee Defendant in an action of debt to the value of thirty & seven pounds & [272] fifteen Shillings to have been paide Long since in green hides & mony & goods to the saide Balls content & is all yet unpaide to the saide Balls great damage these with all other due damages according to Attachm^t Dat. the 20^th m^o 8: 1674. . . . The Jury . . . founde for the plaint. viz. debt thirty five pounds to bee paide in mony & green hides & costs of Court allow^d by the Court thirty one Shillings & eight pence.

Lytherland ags^t Brown

William Lytherland plaint. ag^t William Brown of Salem senio^r Defent^t in an action of the case for irregular or illegall executing upon & imprisoning and retaining in prison the saide Lytherland whereby hee is deprived of a Subsistence of himselfe & sick family and detainment from all publique Ordinances to the damage of the saide Lytherland about Fifty pounds in mony & all other due damages according to Attachm^t Dat. Septemb^r 2^d 1674. . . . The Jury . . . founde for the plaint. damage twenty pounds & costs of Court allowed by the Court thirty one shilling & two pence. The Defend^t appealed from this Judgm^t to the next Court of Assistants and the saide m^r William Brown principall in £:40: & Cap^t Edward Hutchinson & m^r John Pool Sureties in £:20 apeice acknowledged themselves respectiuely bound to . . . prosecute his appeale . . .

[In consequence of a judgment and execution granted at Salem Court, 24 June, 1673, the Marshal made the following return, dated 29 August, 1673 (S. F. 1351.2):

J Levied this Execution upon the body of William Leatherland after demand of Specie at his house & of him & hee refused to pay or to tender any in kinde soe J committed him into the prison at Boston to bee safe kept by Thomas Matson keeper of this house of the prison till this Execution bee fully Satisfied . . . J by the same m^r Brownes order told this Leatherland that five pounds of it was paide already & J demanded noe more but the remainder then.

After obtaining liberty from the Court of Assistants “to goe to the Ordinances of christ in Boston as also to vissit his sick wife w^th his keeper” (Records, i. 21), Lytherland tried this appeal to his creditor (S. F. 1351.6):

Boston Prison^r 14^th 7^mo 1674

Mr W^m Browne

& much Respected

Loving respects presented to you S^r J beseech yo^r favo^r in the perusall of these few lines unto you from yo^r afflicted mizmazed prisoner who beares noe ill will unto you, nor never had any desire to deprive or or evade, whereby you might bee deprived of yo^r true right; which J cannot attaine without a legall way of proceeding against mee as J stand bound with Cap^t Hudson jointly and severally, J beseech you therefore considering my case, you know the debt is not mine, & that J haue a bond to keepe mee indemnified &c yo^r selfe also being convinced as you enformed mee at Salem & that by advice you were enformed that J must suffer before J could act for redress. Jf soe J pray you consider into what a labarynth you haue brought mee, J told you before you kept mee on the tainters by omition endangering mee & my posterity, & now where am J! Jn prison deprived of publick Ordinances, from way of Subsistance for my sick wife & selfe, her saide deprivall of helpe lying (as Supposed) on her deathbed will lye at some body’s dore, as also my rotting in prison (as some Say J shall) but what am J imprisoned for, for a Judgement against mee who never dealt with you for or about one penniworth of anything as singly related, & as the Execution expresseth; what can J doe less then J haue done, J haue noe way of reveiw, for there was never Judgement soe granted to reveiw from, no[r] can J sue the bonds neither upon Cap^t Hudson nor his Successors hee not being named in the Execution, it’s some other matter S^r however it shall appeare upon tryall before godly Magistrates & honest & able Juro^rs let not yo^r Spirit principa[l] & genius J hope is otherwise soe rise against mee as to bee instrumentall of the deprivation of my Soules liberty, for to mee the vision failes, nor altogether deprive my sick wife that J may neither visit her to some help or seeking out, Shee is innocent if my body doe rot in prison (as word brought mee spoken by yo^rs improved) the grave will free from all. Job: 3: 19. But good S^r favour mee soe much (it’s in yo^r power) to grant mee freedome of publick Ordinances & if it might bee sometime with the keeper to visit my Sick wife, & in case of her decease to see her buryed & secure what is left, Jt would bee to my great prejudice to make an escape, J haue yet through mercy Estate enough that my person should not bee in prisoned.

Yo^r favo^r in my request will oblige him, who never bore you ill will nor willing to wrong you but remaine as aboue saide, yo^r as dejected soe rejected Freind & prisoner

W^m Lytherland

Truly Coppied . . . Js^a Addington Cler

This appeal proving unavailing, he drew up the following bill of complaint (S. F. 1351.4) upon which the action was based. His references to the Law Book are to the Generall Laws and Liberties (1672), and are generally accurate:

The Declaration & complaint of Will: Lytherland plaintife against Will: Browne Senio^r Defend^t in an action of the case for irregular or illegal Executing upon imprisoning & retaining in prison the saide Lytherland to his damage about Fifty pounds in money &c. first: That the saide m^r Brown hath executed upon &c upon the s^d Lytherland for not Satisfaction of a Judgement granted to the s^d B [torn] held the 24. 4 ^mo 1673. against the s^d Lytherland without the Nomination of any other person in his Execution whereas the s^d Lytherland never as relating to himselfe had to deale with him to the value of one penny, nor never any Attachment against him singly, Attachment being the ground[s] of Judgement then Lytherland humbly conceives that there can bee noe Judgement soe stated for if not how can an Execution not soe & soe taken out & executed the Attachment Voide in Law, as Law booke p: 144. title Suerties & goods Attach’t as in the proviso & soe against our fundamentall law see in the first Law, the Attachment & Execution differing as [torn] two causes & yet Lytherland restrained.

2. That contrary to Law hee keepes the s^d Lytherland in prison for debt as hee saith, when the law saith p. the. 6. title arrests hee shall not bee kept in prison but when there is an appearance of some Estate that hee will not produce; now that it is not soe with lytherland appeares by the Marshalls Return &c who saith hee demanded it at his house but not of him, at his house according to the law title Marshalls p. 103. 104. Sect. 7. which if it had been soe there had been enough to have Satisfied his pretended debt [torn] part with his right there for. 250^l [torn] [w]ould have Satisfied both debt & damage according to Law of payments, p: 120: 121. if hee would haue house & Land [torn] but amount [torn] his Satisfaction but if hee say it must bee in the same specie m^r Browne hath tooke sufficient occasion to prevent for Lytherland soe imprisoned without mercy as from himselfe can neither injoy the Ordinances of Christ nor visit his sick wife though humbly sollicited nor Liberty to shew Estate & make Agreement to pay in the same Specie pretended being bound up from all convayances &c as. p. 32: Sect. 3.

[3]ly. The Judgement being granted (as he saith) at Salem. 24. 4^mo 1673. and the Execution taken out the. 26. 6^mo 1674 which is aboue. 14. months contrary the Law title Sureties & goods attached. p. 144. which saith where Execution is not taken out & executed within one month after Judgement is granted, all such attachments whether on persons or Estates with Sureties shalbee released & voide in Law, which Law being explained added to in the Law made May 1672. p. 2. still refers to bee to one month to Sureties & principalls [torn] that that’s the intent of the Law, true the former law p. 144. hath provisos in it in answer to which [torn] [Lytherland is] noe stranger for hee hath been here about. 44. yeares & a Freeman of this Jurisdiction about. 40. yeares: But: 2^ly the Law sa[ith] the Court may give further time & respit Execution in any perticuler case; which if it had been done Lytherland should haue freely Submitted, as owneing our good Laws to bee our Stability and tranquility, but that there is noe such thing appeares by the testimony of the Clarke

4^ly Jf m^r Browne should pretend that hee intends a Judgement in that case commenced against William Hudson & Will: Lytherland as the Attachment expresseth & soe the Judgemen^t also m^r Browne well knew that Lytherland was onely a Surety as appeares both by blaming m^r John Hubbard that hee would trust Cap^t Hudson, also m^r Browne saw & read the Counterbond wherein it is owned to bee the Captain’s debt and to keepe Lytherland indemnified &c m^r Browne being convinced as by his acknowledgement that there must bee a legall course taken whereby himselfe & Lytherland might [torn] repaires from Cap^t Hudson who both did and doth affirme gr[eat] part or all to bee paide, one affirming the other denying [how] ever certain it is that m^r Browne hath received of Cap^t [torn] 5^h by m^r John Hubbard his Agent & [40]^a m^r [Joshua] Hew [torn] paide himselfe on that accompt, [torn] will appeare by the Witnesses, and the Mars[torn] ordered to tell this lytherland that five pounds is paide a[s in] his return specified with Abrand this lytherland, o the wof[ul] Enmity & unmercifullness of such a Spirit that is not Satisfi[ed] with his flesh imprisoning &c but Starve his Soul what in [him] lyes though importunely sought unto both by Letter & by Robert Sanford & hee would not, but as hee hath cast him into prison soe still retaines him till hee should pay the debt, the debt not being his nor any part as it is now Stated For

First hee saith the Execution must bee Executed upon lytherland onely & that such a Judgement was granted to him at a County Court held at Salem. 24. 4^mo 1673. which is most untrue for the Judgement at that Court is against William Hudson & William Lytherland Defendants as appeares by the Judgem^t it selfe, now that hee shall execute upon lytherland alone without soe much as mentioning William Hudson at all which is principall, soe that contrary to law hee hath deprived of a reveiw, though there is just cause Seven pounds being paide [torn] & yet Judgement for the whole See title tryalls. p. 152. Sec. 1. & contrary to the Law title Marshalls p: 102: 103. where Execution can bee for noe more then for the remainer & thereby enlardgeing the Marshalls fees for Serving the Execucion p. 102. Sec. 4

2^ly For m^r Browne to Execute upon imprison &c the s^d lytherland alone without Nominating Will: Hudson who is principall & with whome m^r Browne hath since Judgment agreed with Cap^t Hudson to referr all theire differences to men to end, this case of the brandy being one, that if m^r Browne were in the Cap^ts debt, then the pay for the brandy [to bee] taken off or soe much abated, the men were agreed [torn] as the Witnesses will affirme, soe that lytherland did & [doth] conceive that a colaterall agreement doth free him and yet m^r Browne by this illegall course hath not onely deprived lytherland of the benefit of the Law which gives liberty for the Surety to Surrender the principall person into the hands of the Marshall or his Deputy, p: 144.-but

[3]^ly Jf m^r Browne can after. 14. monthes that the Judgement is granted contrary to the Law before alleaged take out and [torn] ly & not Nominating the other, the like may hee doe after. 14. yeares, in which time Lytherland may bee dead & soe executed upon his posterity & then after that by the same rule take another against William Hudson & soe bee twice paide & again after that according to Attachm^t and Judgement take out Execution against both & Execute upon either of them or either of theire posterity; which wilbee a laying up a sad inheritance for his posterity; but through mercy our Law hath otherwise provided, it to bee taken out & Executed in one month as aforesaide: And

[4]^ly This act of m^r Brownes deprives lytherland of prosecuting his Counter-bond for in the Execution William Hudson is not named & then may hee justly Say that this is some matter relateing to Lytherland onely & not a word of mee William Hudson and soe thereby Lytherland or posterity ruinated: all which occasioned the aforesaide Lytherland thus to ma[ke] his humble address to the Hon^rd & godly bench & Jury [for] releife, having his dependance upon the Lord from [whome] comes every mans Judgement

Damages Susteined; his Sixty dayes imprisonment [torn] charges in Sending & for Coppies of Records from Salem besides the extraordinary charges of his sick wife and deprivation of oppertunity to procure wood & provitions &c for winter to his great damage as abouesaide

w^m Lytherland

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

Browne’s Reasons of Appeal have not been preserved; Lytherland’s Answer (S. F. 1351.8) raises no new points. The Court of Assistants reversed the judgment of the lower court (Records, i. 25) in spite of a moving petition (S.F. 1351.7) to them from Lytherland, recalling his friendship with Elder Leverett the Governor’s father and other “Antient bretheren & sistors.” There is no record of when Lytherland was released, but at the January session, 1674/75, he was suing the clerk of the Salem Court for complicity with his alleged persecutor.]

Fogg ag^t Hoar

Ezekiel Fogg plaint. ag^t William Hoar Defendant in an action of debt for witholding the Summe of Seventeen pounds ten Shillings paiable ten pounds in mony & one thousand of Bread at Seven pounds ten Shillings as appeares by a note under his hand bearing date the 15^th of Septemb^r 1674 & other due damages according to Attachm^t Dat. Octob^r 2^d 1674. . . . The Jury . . . founde for the plaintiffe the bill viz. Seventeen pounds ten Shillings & costs of Court. [273]

Legg ag^t Davis

Sammuel Legg plaintife ag^t the goods debts or Estate of Thomas Davis in the hands of Joseph Townsend Attourny to the s^d Davis Defend^t in an action of Reveiw of a judgment granted the s^d Davis at a County Court held in July Last for Nine hundred & Fifty pounds of Sugar in caske here in New-England, which was for nonperformance of a bill of Lading for a horse to bee delivered in the Jsland of Barbados the danger of the Seas excepted; but by strease of winde and weather was forced to the Jsland of Mountserat & there sold the aforesaide horse for Sugar to bee delivered there as per accompt, the plaintife not having any provinder on board neither could get any ashoare whereby to carry the saide horse any farther; by virtue of which Judgment the plaint. is aboue ten pounds in mony damnified & all other due damages according to Attachm^t Dat. August: 29^th 1674. . . . The Jury . . . founde for the Defendant costs of Court, allowed by the Court five Shillings & eight pence: The plaint. appealed from this Judgment to the next Court of Assistants and the saide Sammuell Legg principall in £5. & Jonathan Balston sen^r & Jn^o Williams as Sureties in 50^s apeice acknowledged themselves respectiuely bound to . . . prosecute his Appeale . . .

This maritime and equine case had already once been before the Court. See Davis v. Legg, above, p. 468; the documents of both cases are in S. F. 1348. Captain Legg’s explanation of why his ketch Endeavour failed to deliver Davis’ horse is in S. F. 1348.4. It begins with the following bill of lading (S. F. 1348.8):

Shipped by the grace of God in good order & well conditioned by mee Thomas Davis and for my proper accomp^t in & upon the good Catch called the Jndeavo^r of Boston in New England whereof is Master under god for the present Voyage Samuel Legg and now rideing at anchor in the harbour of Boston and by Gods grace bound for the Jsland of Barbados, to Say one Jron gray horse with a bald face and a kinde of an L C on his Left buttock the .L. not very plaine but discernable two slitts on the top of the Left Eare & a notch on the right Eare behinde; with three tite hhds being marked & numbred as in the Margent, and are to bee delivered in the like good order & well conditioned at the aforesaide port of Barbados (the danger of the Seas onely except^d) unto Cap^t John Merrick or to his assignes hee or they paying Freight for the saide horse at Nine hundred pounds of Muscovado Suger whether the horse Live or dye with primage & avarage accustomed. Jn Witness whereof the Master or purser of the saide Ship hath affirmed to three bills of Lading all of this tenour and date, the one of which three bills being accomplished the other two to stand voide & soe God send the good Ship to her desired port in safety Amen

Dated in Boston the 26^th of June. 1671.

The Caske & horse received, Staving Excepted in the Water caske

per Samuel Legg

Own^d in Court by Sam^ll Legg. July. 30^th 1674.

as Attests Js^a Addington Cler.

Newyorke June. 3^d 1673.

J underwritten assigne & make over all my right title & interest of the within mentioned bill of Loading unto my trusty & welbeloved Freind m^r Joseph Townsend of Boston as Witness my hand the day & yeare abouewritten

Thomas Davis

Witness. Jonathan Woodberry

J Joseph Townsend doe hereby assigne or reassigne all my right & interest of the within mentioned bill of Ladeing unto the abouesaide Thomas Davis as Witness my hand this. 25^th of July. 1674.

Joseph Townsend

Captain Legg explains in the following document (S. F. 1348.4) why the bald-faced gray found a home in Montserrat instead of Barbados.

To the Honored Court & Jury Sam^ll Leggs Declaration

J doe Owne the bill of lading that is now against mee & would a performed it had not the Danger of the Seas prevented by reason the windes did hang very much Easterly in the Voyage and blowed soe hard that J could not keepe to Windward but forced to bare up, much to save the horses, whereof this in controversy was one of the Weakest, and when J came to the latt^d of. 22^d or thereabouts the Winde blowed soe hard that J was forced to goe two or three points from my course being very bad Weather, the Sixth day of August. 1671. J was much afraide of the Shoales of Brubuda & kept all hands on the deck all night or the most part of my men, being very desirous of day, and in the Morning J Look’t about the dawning of the day or a little after & see the Land; which was the Jsland of Grantar, about 2. leagues from the Shoare & had then been at Sea five weekes & something more, my horses very weake & their meate in a manner all done, the winde blowing very hard, J presently advised with my men & passengers & one & all saide let’s goe to any Jsland for there’s noe hopes to get to Windward with these horses, they being placed between decks, & then with a full consent wee bore up the helme & that day abouesaide wee came to an ankor in Mounseratt Rhode about Sun Set it rained & blowed very hard soe that J was much afraide of a Hurrycane & soe weare the people onshoare, J asked the best advice concerning my horses the landing of them, & it was the Judgement of every one that it was a Madness to keepe them onboard such Weather, J did land them & fitting the vessell & did intend to put to Sea; but it pleased god the Weather broke up & in four dayes J directed my Course for Barbadoes my port bound for & was three weekes going thither.—J Subscribe my Selfe yo^r Hono^rs humble Servant

Sam^ll Legg

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

Two passengers on the Endeavour further deposed (S. F. 1348.9, 10) that there was no alternative to selling the horses at Montserrat since no dry fodder could be procured there.

Captain Legg’s Reasons of Appeal (S. F. 1348.6) add nothing to his declaration. The appeal was duly heard by the Court of Assistants (Records, i. 27), which confirmed the former judgment with costs.

The following document is filed with others of this case (S. F. 1348.5), but has nothing to do with it, being an early instance of unpleasantness between colonial skippers and the Royal Navy. The frigate in question was the Rose, which brought Edward Randolph to look over the situation.

To the Hon^rd the Goven^r with the rest of the Hon^rd Magestrates now Assembled in Generall Court at Boston this. 18^th of Septemb^r 1673.

The Remonstrance of Sammuell Legg Master of the Catch Endeavo^r of this place.

Humbly Sheweth.

That yesterday comming out of the Sea with s^d Catch standing up this Harbour in Company of another Catch whereof James Elson was Master, hee being a head of us, before wee came up with the Kings Friggott, about a mile, they fired a shott at m^r Elson from onboard the Frigott, whereupon J strooke my topsail, notwithstanding which, they fired at mee also, then J hailed my topsail close down, & hailed up part of my Mainsail & came under the Friggots stern, then they told mee J must not pass untill farther Order, but brought mee by the lee, & came onboard with theire Boate & tooke away my ancient & jack for the shott; severall provoakeing words passed betwixt the Gunner & my Mate, insoemuch that after they were all in the Boate, they came into the Catch againe with drawn swords & tooke my Mate away; J went afterwards onboard the Friggot & paide 6^s & 8^d for the Shot & redeemed my Colours; telling the Gunner hee might cleere my Mate also, hee replied if J did not hold my tongue hee would press mee, & soe did, & kept mee & my Mate prisoners onboard, & the Friggots men went onboard of my Catch & brought her to an anchor, & fell to drincking there, soe that when J came onboard the Catch againe J founde my men & severall of them very much in drinck.

Sam^ll Legg]

Middlecot ags^t Carter

Richard Middlecot the Order or Attourny of George DeWit plaint. ags^t Ralph Carter Defend^t according to Attachm^t Dat. Octob^r 13^th 1674. The plaint. withdrew his Accion.

Holman ag^t Briggs

Samuel Holman plaint. ags^t Abraham Briggs Defend^t in an action of debt for not paying of thirty six pounds & ten shillings in currant mony due by bill & all other due damages according to Attachm^t Dat. Octob^r 22^d 1674. . . . the Jury . . . founde for the plaint. viz: the bill thirty six pounds ten Shillings & costs of Court allow^d by the Court twenty five shillings.

Execucion issued 3.9^br 1674. [274]

Spowell ag^t Griffin

William Spowell plaint. ags^t John Griffin Defendant according to Attachm^t Dat: October 22^th 1674. The plaint. was nonsuited in failure of process & costs granted the Defendant five Shillings & Ten pence.

Execucion issued: Janur^o: 23. 1674.

Tower ag^t Hobart &^a

John Tower sen^r plaint. against Cap^t Joshua Hobart, Daniel Cushing Deacon John Levit & Matthew Cushing or the majo^r part of them, Representitives for the Town of Hingham or Selectmen for the saide Town Defendants in an action of the case for refuseing to give him & lay him out his proportion of land in the bounds of Hingham according to his proportion of house lotts, being in the possession of two house lotts & hath a right of commonage for two more, having a legall right to the divisions of four house Lotts & Land, being devided by house Lotts & ought soe to bee according to the purchase from the Jndians as appeares by theire Jndian Deed; which hee hath a Legall right unto, being one of the first inhabitants of the saide Town of Hingham and also a purchaser of the severall house Lotts as abouesaide as will appeare by his Deeds & graunts from the Town of the same; yet they refuse to lay him out his proportion of the severall shares of Land æquall to other men according to theire house Lotts, being about two hundred pounds damages & all other due damages according to Attachm^t Dat: 19: of October. 1674. . . . The Jury . . . founde for the Defent^ts costs of Court allowed by the Court thirty eight Shillings.

Execucion issued X^br 9^o 1674.

Briggs ag^t Fogg

Abraham Briggs plaint. against Ezekiel Fogg Defendant in an action of the case for witholding a debt of ten pounds nineteen shillings & three pence in mony due by bond and due interest & all other due damages according to Attachm^t Dat. Octob^r the 7^th 1674. . . . The Jury . . . founde for the plaint. the bond & costs of Court. At the request of the plaint. upon hearing of both partys The magistrates chancered the bond to Eleven pounds five shillings in mony & costs of Court twenty Shillings & four pence

Rawson ag^t Glover &^a

William Rawson (who married Anne the onely daughter of Nathaniel Glover deceased) plaint. against Habakkuk Glover of Boston & John Gurnell of Dorchester (who was guardians to the Children of the saide Nathaniel Glover Late of Dorchester deceased) Defendants in an action of Reveiw of an action of the case commenced & prosecuted at the Last County Court held in Boston in July last [275] for refuseing to give a true just & perticuler account of his or theire managment of the Estate of the s^d Nathaniel Glover deceased & rendring or delivering unto the saide William Rawson his portion or one fourth part due to him in right of his wife in mony goods & Rents in theire or either of theire hands for severall yeares past since theire betrustment, by virtue of which action Judgment was granted for the plaintiffe Six pounds two Shillings & five pence & costs; which is very much short of what is the plaintiff’s due by aboue twenty pounds with other due damages according to Attachment Dat: 22^th of October 1674. . . . The Jury . . . founde for the plaintife thirty seven Shillings damage & costs of Court allowed by the Court Forty eight shillings & eight pence: The plaintife appealed from this Judgment to the next Court of Assistants & the s^d William Rawson principall in five pounds & Jn^o Dafforn & Jn^o Noyse Sureties in fifty shillings apeice acknowledged themselves respectiuely bound to . . . prosecute his appeale . . .

[This is the review of a case based on the Glover will (above, p. 428) which was first tried at the July session this same year (above, p. 472). The following document (S. F. 26692) is endorsed “Glouers defence.”

Whereas the plaintiffe sueth for a division of the reversions of lands, J answer, The Debts and Legacies, which by the will are to be paid before any division be made, do amount to as much as the vallue of the whole farme, therefore, we do not see how there should be any thing remaining in the farme to be divided, for there is by the will 400^l to be paid to m^r Thomas Glouer, also there is a debt of 200^l pound, to be paid in England, to m^r William Glover, due by bill and other accounts, also Two hundred pound apiece to be, to be paid, to John and Pelatiah Glover out of the farme, after their mothers death besides One hundred pound, pound a piece, which was to be paid before her death, which they have not as yet receiued, Soe that there is due to John and Pelatiah Glover each of them Three hundred pound apiece, that is Six hundred pound, to them two, which with the legacies to m^r Thomas Glover and m^r William Glover, is Twelve hundred pounds, which is more then the vallue of the farme, therefore we do not See how there Can be any thinge remayning for a division.

Againe the plaintiffe together with his brethren haue already in possession some of the best of the medow of the farme, and Some of them have Sold and disposed of what they possessed, againe m^rs Glover being desirous that John and Pelatiah Glover should have the farme, gave to her Son Nathanael a Conciderable part of the moovable estate, whereof there is 138 which we Can bringe proofe of. Mrs Glover also thincking that she might Sattisfy Nathanael and his Children, so well that they would not looke for any intrest in the farme, she gave them lands at Dorchester, more then halfe as much as all the Corne land or pasture land on the farme, which they have in possession, and some of them have Sold that which they possessed, therefore doubtlesse, the plaintiffe with his brethren haue receiued more then is equivalent to any intrest which they Can Justly Claime in the farme, and doubtlesse they will not disowne their possession of those lands mentioned, wh[ich] do appeare to be 138 acres under the hand of Deacon Capen Record[er.] Againe, as for John and Pelatiah Glover, they haue not yet receiu[ed] any more then four yeares rent of the farme, it is but Six yeares Since m^rs Glover dyed, and building and reparation, tooke up two yeares rent, which Cannot pay any more then the Jntrest of the Debts and legacies.

Rawson’s Reasons of Appeal are not preserved, but their nature is sufficiently indicated in Glover’s answer to them (S. F. 1459.4):

Jn Answ^r to m^r W^m Rawsons Reasons of appeale (as he calleth them)

1 To y^e first Reason, whereas the Plaintiff saith in his first Reason that if they or any two of them haue power to Lease, then much more to devide to y^e heyres J answer John & Pelatja Glover doe not dispose, of any Land to make any devision thereof but only to Lease it, w^ch any man may haue power to doe, who hath not power to devide, amongst others, therefore it doth not follow y^t because one who is sued (not in the right Capacitie) & yet hath power to Administer on the estate, & doth Lease the Land y^t therefore he hath power to devide the Land, though the will doth forbid devision till legacjes be payd, yet it doth not forbid Leasing for then there could be no rent wherewith to pay either debts or legacjes

2 To his 2^d Reason J answer, what need is there of more proofe for the legacjes then the will, (as for the debts, when m^r Habbacuck Glouer commeth, wch will shortly be he will make them appeare. Jn the meane while J am only a witness to the debts (& no heyre to the estate therefore not liable to be Sued) also whereas there is a Bill of m^r John Glovers wch doth declare the sume, wch was forgott to be put into the Court w^ch is ready to appeare when required by Authoritie, As for y^e legacjes y^e will doth mention 400^l to m^r Thomas Glover, & also 400^l to John & Pelatja Glover, after their mothers decease, besides 200^l w^ch John & Pelatja should haue receiued before their mothers decease, these w^th the Debt of 200^l due to m^r Willjam Glover, with the Jnterest of all these amounteth to more then the Rent of the Farmes. And whereas he saith that the estate was three tjmes as much as all y^e debts & Legacjes J answer yet that estate did not pay any legacjes nor all the debts, neither had John or Pelatja any thing of it, but it appeareth by y^t account w^ch Roger Billinge gave into the Court, that m^r Nathaniell Glover & his children haue had that Estate or a great part of it, besides the horses wch m^r W^m Rawson sued m^r Habbacucke Glover for, w^ch was part of m^rs Anne Glovers Estate: & besjds what was gjven to make y^e land worth 400^l

3 To his 3^d Reason whereas he is pleased to say that John Glover with hime-selfe as Appellant moved the Countie Court for a division (that is not so) also whereas the Appellant saith the Court declare that y^e Appellant must sue at Common Law for a division, J know nothing of that neither, but if the Countie Court did so direct, that is nothing to y^e now defendant, he being only a legatie & no heyre

4 To his 4^th Reason of appeale he Saith he that Sueth keepeth y^e estate to his owne wronge & doth not pay the pretended Debts, J answer there hath not been time enough to pay all, for since our mothers decease there was two yeares rent layd out vpon necessarje Repaireations & building as appeares by Roger Billinge testimony [to &] this is but the Sixth year, wch is not to be reckoned, because the rent thereof is not due till the yeare be out Also whereas the present troublesome plantiue, makes a great wonderment as he saith, joyneing therewith his afflicted Condition, pretending he is kept out of an vndoubted right Saying y^t y^e defendant hath only a pretence of Debts to be payd w^ch is a mistake in y^e Plaintiff to call them p^rtended Debts, when they are reall Debts, so not at all doubting, but this Hono^rd Court will see Just Cause to Confirme the Just Judgement of the Last Countie Court, & y^e Gent^m of the Jurie the Same, so submitting my selfe to yo^r hono^rs

J am yo^r humble servant

John Glouer

When the action of appeal was called, “both parties Appeared & they both declaring they were Agreed the plantiffe wth the Courts Consent withdrew his Accion” (Records of Court of Assistants, i. 26).]

Dafforn ag^t Lisly

John Dafforn Facto^r or Agent to m^r John Johnson of Thenerife plaint. against Robert Lisly Defendant in an action of the case for the non performance or breach of bill of Lading under the s^d Lisly’s hand bearing date the 10. Feb^r 1673. as may appeare by s^d bill of Lading & Jnvoyce & otherwise to the plaintifes damage in behalfe of his principall as aforesaide the Summe of thirty pounds in mony or thereabouts with interest & other due damages according to Attachm^t Dat: 22: Octob^r 1674. . . . The Jury . . . founde for the Defendant costs of Court allowed by the Court Seventeen Shillings & ten pence.

Execucion issued 2: Nov^r 1674.

Dafforn ags^t Lisly

John Dafforn plaint. against Robert Lisly Defendant according to Attachm^t Dat. 22: October. 1674. The plaint. withdrew his Accion.

Nanney ags^t Garland &^a

Katharin Nanney Executrix to the Estate of Robert Nanney deceased plaint. ag^t Jn^o Garland & Henry Robie &^a according to Attachmt Dat. October: 13^th 1674. The plaint. withdrew her Accion. [276]

Dafforn ags^t Holowall & Butler

John Dafforn plaint. against William Holloway and Stephen Butler Defendants in an action of the case for or upon a trespass done by the s^d Holloway & Butler by pulling down & removeing the s^d Daffornes fence from of his land Lying before m^r Rich^d Wooddes house in Boston & laying his land waste; which s^d Land was purchased or leased by the Town or Select men of Boston first to Cap^t James Johnson & the saide Johnson convayed & made over all his right and interest of s^d land unto Rich^d Woodde & by the s^d Woodde in like manner made over & convayed unto the s^d Dafforne as will appeare by Deeds & Evidences reference thereto being had which trespass & act as aforesaide is to the plaintife great damage in or to his title of s^d Land & otherwise as shall appeare by proofe, which hee refers to & other due damages according to Attachm^t Dat: 22^th Octob^r 1674. . . . The Jury . . . founde for the plaint. ten shillings damage & costs of Court allow^d by the Court thirty seven Shillings & two pence.

Whetcomb ag^t Gibbs

Josiah Whetcomb assigne of Joseph Waters plaint. ags^t Benjamin Gibbs Defend^t in an action of the case for detaining of a horse and a bridle & a saddle, whereby the plaintiffe is much damnified for want of the saide horse & other due damages according to Attachm^t Dat: August: 24: 1674. . . . The Jury . . . founde for the plaint. damage six pounds in mony or that Benjⁿ Gibbs return the s^d horse with bridle & saddle as delivered within twenty four houres & costs of Court; allow^d by the Court thirty eight shillings & sixpence.

[For the beginning of this case, see above, p. 486 and p. 490, where the order of the court to the constable of Lancaster, that he should deliver Waters’ horse to Gibbs, supposedly, but not explicitly, in satisfaction of the former’s theft of a silver porringer from him, is recorded; also p. 493 where the judgment against Waters is recorded.

Unable to make the restitution required by this judgment, and apparently assuming that the transfer of the horse to Gibbs was invalidated by the sentence, Waters immediately made an assignment of his property in the animal to one Josiah Whetcomb (S. F. 1424.11), on condition that the latter pay his fine and the sum awarded by the Court to Gibbs. After fulfilling his part of the agreement (Gibbs’ receipt for 5l 8s is in S. F. 1320.3), Whetcomb demanded the horse of Gibbs, who refused to surrender the animal; hence this action. Gibbs procured a review of the case in the April session, 1675: see below, pp. 587–92.]

Atherton ags^t Lockwood

Cap^t Jonathan Atherton plaint. against Cap^t Richard Lockwood Defendant in an action of the case for witholding a debt of Fifty one shilling in mony due for a Mercator draft & a shilling in mony Lent him; which mony hee promised to pay him long since as will further appeare; with due interest & all other due damages according to Attachmt Dat. October 6^th 1674. . . . The Jury . . . founde for the plaintife viz. that the s^d Lockwood return to s^d Atherton a good Mercato^rs draft or Fifty one Shillings in mony & costs of Court allowed by the Court twenty three Shillings & four pence. Execucion issued 3. Novemb^r 1674. [277]

Chappell ags^t Marshall

Nicholas Chappell plaint. against Cap^t Thomas Marshall of Lynn Defendt in an action of the case for witholding the Summe of thirty four pounds in mony due for wines sold him as appeares by Booke & all due damages according to Attachmt Dat. Octob^r 20^th 1674. . . . The Jury . . . founde for the Defendant costs of Court allowed by the Court nine Shillings.

Parkman ag^t Townsend

Elias Parkman plaint. ags^t Joseph Townsend Defendant in an action of debt of Eleven pounds Sterling mony of New-England due by a bill or bond under his hand as will further appeare by saide bill & due interest & all other due damages according to Attachm^t Dat. October 19^th 1674. . . . The Jury . . . founde for the plaintife viz: the bill to pay in mony Eleven pounds & costs of Court three & twenty shillings & two pence: The Defendant appealed to the next Court of Assistants & the s^d Joseph Townsend principall in two & twenty pounds & Richard Knight & Jn^o Keen as Sureties in Eleven pounds apeice acknowledged themselves respectiuely bound to . . . prosecute his Appeale . . .

[A copy of the bond in question is in S. F. 1347.3. It is an obligation to pay 11l, current money of New England,

. . . upon a proviso that William Waterland of Barbados Merchant dus not pay or cause to bee paide unto the saide Parkemans Attourny Richard Nuball Merchant in Barbados the full & just Summe of Eleven hundred Ninety & two pounds of Muscovado Sugar or the value thereof in mony at or before the tenth day of November next ensuing being the remainder of a bill of three thousand One hundred and Fifty pounds of Muscovado Sugar due for Freight of a parcell of goods consigned unto James Fauntleroy Merchant in the saide Barbados that were Ship’t onboard the Ship Jane & Sarah of Boston the saide Parkeman Commander. . . .

A copy of Parkeman’s bill of costs, and a copy of writ, return, and bond for Townsend’s appearance to answer to Parkeman’s complaint. dated 19 Oct., 1674, are also in S. F. 1347.3.

S. F. 1347.2

The Resons of Apeale from y^e Judgment of y^e honered County Court held y^c 27^th of 8ber 1674 att boston, in y^e Case y^t Elias parkeman was plaintiue & Joseph Townsend Defent Vnto this honered Court of Assistance

Where as y^e Apealant was sued vpon A bill w^ch was Conditionall in w^ch the princeple or Reall debt is but 1192 pounds of suger payable in barbados at 5 score to y^ehundered w^ch some of suger there; was at y^e time due & now by Account Cvrrant worth but a boute 10^s per s^d hundered pond as is Comonly soe bought there & many Considerable quantatys haue bin soe bought here to bee payd for in this mony when advice is Receued here of y^e payment of y^e suge^r in barbados after w^ch Rate y^e sayd some of suger is worth at a Just & true value in new England mony but about 6: pounds; & yet y^e Apealant is Condemned to pay for sd some of sug^r Eleuen pounds in mony w^ch is nere duble y^e Value of it soe yt y^e Apealant doe humbly Conceue y^e merrit & Equity of his Case was not Considered Efectually; for y^t y^e Apealant Can bee Justly indebted noe more then y^e value of y^e sug^r as afore sd & interest there y^t w^ch will not Amount to Eight pounds at y^e highest Rate of debt & damages by interest or others: w^ch is all that Can Equaly or Justly bee due or desiered as Conceued; y^e Consideration here of is humbly presented vnto this honnered Court & gentlemen of y^e Jurey for Reliefe to y^e Apealant herein by yo^r most humble servant, in behalfe of & as Attorney to sd Joseph Townsend

per me Christopher clarke

dorothy townsend

These Reasons were received Feb^ro 20^th 1674.

per Js^a Addington Cler

The Court of Assistants (Records, i. 24) confirmed the former judgment.]

Calley ags^t Hasket

Hanna Calley Attourny to her husband Joseph Calley plaint. ag^t Stephen Hasket of Salem Defend^t according to Attachm^t Dat: Octob^r 8^th 1674. The plaint. withdrew her Accion.

Hudson ag^t George

Cap^t William Hudson plaint. ag^t Richard George living at Cap^t Hudsons Farme at wading River Defendant in an action of the case for breach of Covenant in non paiment of three yeares rent & upward & disorders in his house contrary to his saide Covenant to the damage of about One hundred pounds with interest & all other due damages according to Attachmt Dat: Septemb^r 22^th 1674. . . . The Jury . . . founde for the plaint. viz: three yeares rent & about ⅓ due according to Covenant which is One hundred Sixteen pound thirteen Shillings & four pence & costs of Court allowed by the Court Fifty eight shillings & eight pence.

Execucion issued Novemb^r 2: 1674. [278]

Hudson ag^t Brown

Cap^t William Hudson plaint. ag^t William Brown senio^r of Salem Defendant according to Attachmt Dat. 19^th of September 1674. The plaint. withdrew his Accion.

Hudson ag^t Hunt

Cap^t William Hudson plaint. ag^t John Hunt Defendant according to Attachm^t Dat. October 21^th 1674: The plaint. withdrew his Accion.

Wright ag^t Hall

Cap^t William Wright of Boston plaint. ag^t Ralph Hall of Exeter Defendant in an action of debt for seven thousand five hundred foote of Merchantable pine boards due by booke as with his hand thereunto set may appeare; which boards were to bee delivered in Aprill last at Boston & all due damages according to Attachmt Dat. Septemb^r 29^th 1674. . . . The Jury . . . founde for the plaint. seven thousand five hundred foote of Merchantable pine boards at Boston & costs of Court, allowed by the Court thirty Shillings.

Smith ag^t Newman

John Smith (Attourny to George Smith of the Island of Tenerife Merchant in behalfe of the s^d George Smith & Company) plaint. ag^t Thomas Newman Late Master of the Ship Speedwell of Salem Defendant for witholding the Summe of six hundred pounds of Lawfull mony of New-England due for breach of Charterparty under his hand & Seal made between him saide Newman on the one party & Thomas Russell & John Dafforn in the behalfe & for the Acc^o of the s^d George Smith & Company on the other party bearing date the twentieth day of December Ann^o 1673. the s^d Newman not having delivered the goods Shipped per saide Russell & Dafforn for Acc^o afores^d according to bill of Loading under his hand Dated the s^d 20^th day of Decemb^r 1673 & also the s^d Newman having Loaden a considerable part of the s^d Ship Speedwell during the s^d voyage for his own or his freinds Acc^o whereby the goods of the s^d Smith & Company were not carried in s^d Ship being to theire great damage; with other due damages according to Attachm^t Dat. Octob^r 16^th 1674. . . . The Jury . . . founde for the plaint. the breach of the Charterparty six hundred pounds & costs of Court allowed by the Court five pound three Shillings. The Defendant appealed from this Judgment to the next Court of Assistants & the s^d Tho: Newman principall in twelve hundred pounds [279] & m^r William Brown sen^r & John Turnor as Sureties in six hundred pounds apeice acknowledged themselves respectiuely bound to . . . prosecute his Appeale. . . .

Paine to Balston

Samuel Paine of S^t Christophers personally appeared in Court 27.8^br 1674 & acknowledged a Judgment against himselfe & Estate for Fifty pounds in mony unto Jonathan Balston sen^r of Boston for the use of Ralph Willet of S^t X^tophers being for soe much due according to bill Dat. Feb^r 3.7¾ with interest

Present

Simon Bradstreete		27:8^br 74.
Majo^r Tho: Clarke

Williams to Wharton

Personally appeared John Williams of Boston Barber and acknowledged a judgment against himselfe & Estate for fifteen pounds Eighteen Shillings in mony unto m^r Richard Wharton: Execucion by consent to bee respited for one month.

Fishers Licence

Joshua Fisher is allowed to keepe a house of publique Entertainment in Dedham to Sell wine beere & Sider by retail till Aprill Court next and the s^d Joshua Fisher principall in ten pounds & Elder John Wiswall & Cap^t Daniel Fisher as Sureties in five pounds apeice were bound in Court for his observance of the Laws title Jnkeepers with theire additions.

Jacklens discharge

Edmund Jacklen of Boston is freely discharged from attending Ordinary Trainings in Cap^t Savage his company without paying any thing yearely to the use of the Company.

Henningwayes bonds continued

Ralph Henningway & Joshua Hews sen^r appeared in Court and declared that Ruth Henningway for whose appearance they were bound to this Court was not yet delivered & they desired the case might bee continued till the next Court of this County, they declaring they continued theire bonds till then.

Grandjury discharg^d

The Grandjury brought in theire bill of presentments. 28: 8^br 1674 & were discharged.

Order concerning m^rs Sarah Pickering

Whereas m^rs Sarah Pickering was presented to this Court by the Grandjury for living from her husband: The Court on perusall of Evidence given in & Letters from her husband wherein hee doth renounce her as a wife & declares that hee never will come to her nor receive her as a wife nor liue with her as a husband The Court judge that the s^d presentment doth fall & doe declare they see noe reason for her to bee presented or complained of for the future as a transgressor of the law in that kinde

Veering discharg^d

Vpon due proclamacion made John Veering was discharged from his bonds of good behaviour.

Audit for Gillams Accompt^s

The Court Orders & appoints Cap^t Tho: Lake, m^r Jn^o Richards & m^r Peter Lidget a Committee (with consent of the persons) to audit the Account presented to this Court by Cap^t Benjamin [280] Gillam & m^r Joseph Gillam of theire administracion to theire Father Benjamin Gillam his Estate & to receive & hear what Objections may bee presented by m^r Richard Sharp or others concerned in the same against that accompt & to make an ajustment thereof & in case they finde anything of difficulty to present it to the Court & to make theire Return of what they doe herein upon Thursday 12^th Novemb^r next. Cap^t Tho: Lake to appoint time & place of meeting & all persons concerned are required to give theire attendance.

Foggs bond

Ezekiel Fogg principall in Fifty pounds & m^r Francis Johnson & Henry Harwood as Sureties in twenty five pounds apeice all in mony acknowledged themselves respectiuely bound in Court to the Treasuro^r of the County of Suffolke on condicion that the s^d Ezekiel Fogg should personally appeare at the next Court of this County to answer for what hee shalbee charged with by Mary Hawkins for committing Fornication with her & begetting her with Childe & that hee should abide the Order of the Court therein & not depart without Licence & in the meane time bee of good behavio^r

Deerings Estate Setled

For the Setlement of the Estate of the late Samuel Deering of Brantery, his widow presenting an account of her administracion to the s^d Estate The Court discharges her from her s^d administracion & confirme the Estate Left upon the widow for her own Subsistence & bringing up of her Children & Order that the widow pay twenty Shillings apeice to the 7. youngest Children left by her s^d husband as they arrive at theire respective ages The Eldest having had her portion already: And if there appeare to bee any Estate of Land at Quinebauge that was the s^d Deerings that it bee equally devided between the s^d Deerings eight Children when it is made to appeare.

Hubart Fined 40^s

John Hubart of Hingham & his now wife being present^d by the Grandjury for committing of Fornication before marriage, hee appearing acknowledged the Fact. The Court upon consideration of what hee alleaged by way of excuse & his sorrow for his offence, doe Sentence him to pay Forty Shillings in mony as a fine to the County in the behalfe of himselfe & his wife & to pay fees of Court standing committed untill the Sentence bee performed.

Blake alias Briggs Sentenc^d

Joseph Blake, alias George Briggs being committed to prison to answer for his Suspitious company keeping with Deborah the wife of George Burrill & practising evill ags^t the s^d George; for night walking & prophane Swearing Upon due consideration of what was alleaged & proved against him, (hee acknowledging himselfe to bee a married man in Lime, in England) The Court Sentenc^d him to bee severely whip’t with thirty Stripes & to pay fees of Court & prison standing committed untill the Sentence bee performed & to pay charges of prosecution [281] and Order him to return to England to his wife by the next oppertunity of Shipping on the pcenalty of twenty pounds in mony to bee forfited to the County.

Order to Summon the Exec^rs of the late Gov^rs will

In pursuance of an Order of the Generall Court respecting the will of the late Govern^r Rich^d Bellingham Esq^r The Court Orders the Clarke to Summons the Exec^rs of s^d will & m^r Rich^d Wharton to attend on thursday 12 Novemb^r instant, after Lecture with reference to the s^d Order.

Burrell & Adams’s bond forfit^d

George Burrell & Abraham Adams being bound in a bond of Forty pounds for appearance of Deborah the wife of s^d George Burrell at this Court: Shee not appearing upon due calling they her Sureties making answer Shee was escaped The Court declared theire bond forfited afterwards upon the petition of the s^d George The Court was pleased to remit the forfiture, the s^d George Burrell paying ten Shillings in mony as a fine to the County for his being drunck & fees of Court.

Farnham Sworn a Freeman

Joseph Farnham of Boston tooke the Oath of Freedom of y^s Colony

Harding & Tillinghast Admonish’t

Stephen Harding & Pardon Tillinghast both of Providence being bound over to this Court to answer for theire comming from Providence to the Town of Mendam to Seduce people to theire corrupt opinions, they being called did appeare: and upon hearing & consideracion of what was alleaged against them & what themselves Owned, none of the Town of Mendam nor in theire behalfe appearing to prosecute them The Court Admonished them & warned them of comming to Mendam for any such end Ordered them to pay fees of Court & discharg^d them

Adams’s presentm^t continued & order for Summons

Jonathan Adams of Medfeilde & his wife being present^d to this Court to answer for theire absenting from the publique worship & being Summoned to appeare, hee excused his non appearance with the Sickness of his Family. The Court continued theire presentm^t till the next Court of this County & Order them then to bee Summoned.

Punnell’s imprisonm^t continued till Shee finde Security

Mary Punnell being committed to prison to answer for her Escaping from a former Court when Shee was upon tryall for severall misdemeano^rs & now appearing confessed that Shee was with Childe by James Jarrett The Court Orders that Shee bee continued in prison till Shee give in Security of five pounds for her appearance at the next Court of this County.

Pope Admonish’t

Thomas Pope being complained of for helping to conveigh away Mary Punnell from the hands of Justice, hee appearing Owned that hee did carry her over Boston Neck, but knew not that Shee was under any restraint: The Court Sentenc^d him to bee admonished & to pay fees of Court.

Freemen Sworn

Tho: Bligh, Tho: Smith, Rich^d Sharpe & William Jngram all of Boston being admitted to the Freedom of this Colony by the Generall Court were now Sworn. [282]

Forbes Fined 4^li

Alexander Forbes, being committed to prison to answer for his committing of Fornication with Katharin now his wife before marriage; which hee confessed in Court: The Court Sentenced him to bee whip’t with fifteen Stripes or to pay four pound in mony as a fine to the County in behalfe of himselfe & his wife & fees of Court Standing committed untill the Sentence bee performed.

Forbes Sent

Katharin Forbes late Robbinson being bound over to this Court to answer as aboues^d which Shee confessed in Court: The Court Sentenced her to bee whip’t with ten Stripes when Shee is delivered of the Childe Shee now goeth withall in case the four pound aboues^d bee not paide by her husband & fees of Court Standing committed untill the Sentence bee perform^d

Harris Sent

Abraham Harris being committed to prison to answer for his Stealing of goods from the widdow of Jsaac Walker at the late fireing & blowing up of her Shop by Gunpowd^r the saide Harris confessed in Court that hee did take up a peice of duecape silke which was founde with him valued at 11^li The Court Sentenc^d him to bee whip’t with twenty Stripes or to pay five pound in mony as a fine to the County and to return m^rs Walker her silke again & to pay her two & twenty pounds in mony being that threefold restitution that the Law requires & to pay fees of Court & prison standing committed untill the Sentence bee performed.

Bedwell Sent

Samuel Bedwell jun^r bound over to this Court to answer for his stealing of severall parcells of Ribbon from Asaph Eliott valued at 38^s some part of them being returned again Upon hearing of what was alleaged & proved against him & what himselfe confessed The Court Sentenc^d him to bee whip’t with twenty Stripes and to pay unto Asaph Eliott five pounds Fourteen Shillings in mony being that threefold restitution the Law requires discounting what hee hath already received in part thereof & to pay fees of Court Standing committed untill the Sentence bee performed & Order the Selectmen of Boston to take care to dispose of him to some good Service and Bezaliel Leveret a Childe who as hee saith founde some yardes of ribbon of the saide Eliotts amongs’t his Shreads in his workehouse & sold it to the saide Bedwell The Court Orders his Father m^r Hudson Leverett to correct him in the pu^rsence of a Constable.

Morton Ordered to depart this Colony

Henry Morton being committed to prison to answer for Suspition of his having a hand in convaying away Deborah the wife of George Burrell & goeing in a Suspitious manner between her & Joseph Blake alias George Briggs in prison since hee was committed & Shee under Sureties to answer for Suspitious Company keeping The Court Ordered him to bee continued in prison till hee give in bond of 20^li with Sureties to bee of good behavio^r till the next Court of this County & then to appeare. Jn answer to his peticion The Court afterwards Ordered him to give his own bond of 20^li to depart this Colony [283]

Order for Dubleday’s bond for good behavio^r

The Court Orders that Roger Dubleday renew his bonds for the good behavio^r till the next Court of this County.

Hunt & Hawkins Ordered to pay charges

John Hunt Butcher being prosecuted by Tho: Drake of Waymouth for killing another mans Oxe & W^m Hawkins jun^r being his partner The Court upon hearing of what was alleaged & proved against them & what themselues answered by way of Excuse, Ordered them to pay Tho: Drake thirty Shillings in mony for his charges of prosecution.

Order concerning Curles goods

The Court Orders that Js^a Addington doe take into his custody & secure all such goods & household Stuffe as shalbee founde in the possession of Nicholas Curle, who lately came from Bristoll, or that doe belong unto the s^d Curle untill farther Order; and that hee Signify to Cap^t Robert Vicaris at Bristoll that the saide Curle is Seized & what goods are founde with him & the persons Names to whome they doe belong, requesting him to give Notice thereof.

The Court Adjourned to Thursday. 12^th Novemb^r at nine a clock in the morning.

Townsend & Thayers discharge to m^rs Penn

Whereas Elder James Penn late of Boston deceased did by his last will & Testament give & bequeath unto us Hanna Townsend his Sister & unto Nathaniel Thayre in right of his wife Deborah his Kinswoman to each of us a Legacy of Fifty pounds apeice in mony to bee paide to us after the decease of his widdow & Relict (and Executrix of his last will) m^rs Katharin Penn: Now Know all men by these pu^rsents that wee the saide Hanna Townsend & Nathaniel Thayre for & in consideration of the Summe of Forty pounds apeice in mony to us in hand paide by m^r James Allen agent for the saide m^rs Penn the receipt whereof wee doe hereby acknowledge doe each of us for o^rselves o^r heires Executo^rs & administrato^r for ever remise release & quitclaime unto the saide m^rs Katharin Penn her heires & Exec^rs of & from the saide Legacy & Legacies & all other claimes & demands that wee or either of us might or should haue unto the Estate late the saide James Penns by virtue of his last will & Testament. Jn Witness whereof wee the abouesaide Hanna Townsend & Nathaniel Thayer haue hereunto put o^r hands this 24^th of Novernb^r 1674 @

the marke of

Hanna H T Townsend

Nath: Thayer

Signed & Deliuered in the pu^rsence of us

John Wiswall senio^r

Anthony Stoddard senior

Js^a Addington 24–9–74

Hanna Townsend & Nathaniel Thayer acknowledged the aboue written to bee theire act & Deed. 24 9^br 1674 before mee Edward Tyng Assist.

Entred per Js^a Addington Cler [284]

November 12^th 1674 @

The Court met according to Adjournm^t

Present

Jn^o Leverett Esq^r Gov^r	Edw: Tyng
Simon Bradstreete Esq^r	W^m Stoughton
	Majo^r Tho: Clarke

Order for Margar^t Stevens returning to Charlestown

The Court Orders that the Clarke grant a warrant to the Constable of Boston to return Margaret Stevens the wife of Thomas Stevens to Charlestown the place of her aboade, Shee being left there by her husband & provided for: The Court declaring that if any matter of charge happen by her & a dispute should arise about the same, that the Law is open; and that the Ferrimen doe not abridge her of passing too & again as other persons doe

Connigraves fine remitted to 10^s & fees

Jn Answer to the petition of Elizabeth Connigrave referred to this Court from the Generall Court: The Court doth remit the fine of 5^li imposed upon her at a former Court upon her present paiment of ten Shillings in mony to the County Treasuro^r & fees of Court.

Nickson Fined 5^li

Hope Nickson convict in Court by her own confession of Selling strong beare & some brandy without Licence The Court Sentenc^d her to pay five pounds in mony as a fine to the County & fees of Court:

Order concerning Bumpas

The Court Orders the Clarke to issue out warrant to the Constable of Boston to apprehend Hannah Bumpas & to put her onboard of some Boate bound for Hingham or Scituate, that Shee may bee returned to Marshfeilde the place of her aboade the Selectmen of Boston having Entred caution ag^t her abideing here in this Town.

Lock & his wife admonished

George Lock & Ruth his wife appearing before this Court, the s^d Lock being complained of by his wife for severall abuses offered to her: The Court upon hearing of the matter doe Sentence the s^d George & Ruth Lock to bee admonished & to pay fees of Court & Order the s^d Ruth to live with the s^d George Lock as her husband

Dobleday Fined 5^li

Roger Dobleday being bound over to this Court to answer for Suspition of his taking & rideing away of a horse of Tho: Dunns of Waymouth. The Court upon hearing of the severall Evidences & pleas in the case; as also what agreement the s^d Dobleday had made with Tho: Dunn about the s^d horse (with the consent of the Court) as to his Satisfaction, and what the s^d Dobleday acknowledged in his petition as to his confœderating with & conniving at an Jndian’s takeing & rideing of the s^d horse (which Indian was his pilot) the saide Dobleday at the time thereof being under bonds of good behavio^r The Court declared his bond for the good behaviour to bee forfit^d and doe Sentence the s^d Dobleday to pay five pound thereof in mony presently & fees of Court: and respit the taking of any more thereof untill farther Order hee standing committed untill hee pay the saide Summe.

Gillams Estate Setled

For the Setlement of the Estate of the Late Benjⁿ Gillam sen^r deceased, that is yet Left undisposed of: The Court having appointed a Committee to audit the accot presented to this Court of Benjⁿ & Joseph Gillam theire administracion to that Estate who haue made theire Return: And wt was Left undetermined [285] by the s^d Committee, having been resolved by the Court, there being now the Summe of two hundred & Eighteen pounds twelue Shillings & nine pence left to bee devided of that Estate: The Court considering that Joseph Gillam hath already received his portion out of that Estate given to him upon his marriage The Court Orders that the s^d Estate of two hundred & Eighteen pounds twelue Shillings & nine pence bee devided into two equall parts, the one halfe thereof to bee to the use of Cap^t Benjⁿ Gillam & his heires for ever; the other halfe thereof to bee devided into two equall parts between Zechariah Gillam and Rich^d Sharpe (who married with Hanna the daughter of the late Benjⁿ Gillam) to the use of them & theire heires for ever; Zechariahs part to bee paide in to the s^d Sharpe as hee is Attourny, and if at any time hereafter there appears to bee any more Estate of the s^d Gillams not yet known or Jnventoried, that it bee disposed of to the abouesaide three persons according to the same proportion: And that what Estate did belong to the widdow & Relict of the s^d Benjⁿ Gillam at her decease bee disposed of according to her last will: and that m^r Benjⁿ & Joseph Gillam fulfilling this Order are discharged from theire s^d administracion.

Order for Watsons appearance

The Court Orders that Elisabeth Watson appeare the next Court of this County to give in her Reasons why m^r Humphry Warren & Cap^t Samuel Mosely should not bee discharged from theire paiment towards the Maintenance of her illegitimate Childe begotten by Samuel Warkeman, for whome the s^d Warrens predecesso^r & s^d Mosely were Sureties; otherwise they shalbee discharged.

Phillips’s discharge

Deacon John Phillips presenting an acco^t of his administracion to the Estate of Alice Clarke widdow deceased: The Court Orders, the ballance of his Acco^t being Sixteen Shillings & six pence to bee deliuered to Susanna Francis the daughter of the deceased & the s^d Phillips is discharged of his s^d Administracion.

Turners discharge

m^r W^m Turner presenting an acco^t of his administracion to the Estate of Daniel Guppy deceased was discharged therefrom.

This Court dissolved Novemb^r 13^th 1674. @ [286]

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 27th of October: 1674@

Present

Jury of Tryalls Sworn

Hoare v. Fogg]

Mosely agst Hobart

Winslow agst Shakerly &a

Ball agt Rigbee

Lytherland agst Brown

Fogg agt Hoar

Legg agt Davis

Middlecot agst Carter

Holman agt Briggs

Execucion issued 3.9br 1674. [274]

Spowell agt Griffin

Tower agt Hobart &a

Briggs agt Fogg

Rawson agt Glover &a

Dafforn agt Lisly

Dafforn agst Lisly

Nanney agst Garland &a

Dafforn agst Holowall & Butler

Whetcomb agt Gibbs

Atherton agst Lockwood

Chappell agst Marshall

Parkman agt Townsend

Calley agst Hasket

Hudson agt George

Hudson agt Brown

Hudson agt Hunt

Wright agt Hall

Smith agt Newman

Paine to Balston

Present

Williams to Wharton

Fishers Licence

Jacklens discharge

Henningwayes bonds continued

Grandjury dischargd

Order concerning mrs Sarah Pickering

Veering dischargd

Audit for Gillams Accompts

Foggs bond

Deerings Estate Setled

Hubart Fined 40s

Blake alias Briggs Sentencd

Order to Summon the Execrs of the late Govrs will

Burrell & Adams’s bond forfitd

Farnham Sworn a Freeman

Harding & Tillinghast Admonish’t

Adams’s presentmt continued & order for Summons

Punnell’s imprisonmt continued till Shee finde Security

Pope Admonish’t

Freemen Sworn

Forbes Fined 4li

Forbes Sent

Harris Sent

Bedwell Sent

Morton Ordered to depart this Colony

Order for Dubleday’s bond for good behavior

Hunt & Hawkins Ordered to pay charges

Order concerning Curles goods

Townsend & Thayers discharge to mrs Penn

November 12th 1674 @

Present

Order for Margart Stevens returning to Charlestown

Connigraves fine remitted to 10s & fees

Nickson Fined 5li

Order concerning Bumpas

Lock & his wife admonished

Dobleday Fined 5li

Gillams Estate Setled

Order for Watsons appearance

Phillips’s discharge

Turners discharge

Mosely ags^t Hobart

Winslow ags^t Shakerly &^a

Ball ag^t Rigbee

Lytherland ags^t Brown

Fogg ag^t Hoar

Legg ag^t Davis

Middlecot ags^t Carter

Holman ag^t Briggs

Execucion issued 3.9^br 1674. [274]

Spowell ag^t Griffin

Tower ag^t Hobart &^a

Briggs ag^t Fogg

Rawson ag^t Glover &^a

Dafforn ag^t Lisly

Dafforn ags^t Lisly

Nanney ags^t Garland &^a

Dafforn ags^t Holowall & Butler

Whetcomb ag^t Gibbs

Atherton ags^t Lockwood

Chappell ags^t Marshall

Parkman ag^t Townsend

Calley ags^t Hasket

Hudson ag^t George

Hudson ag^t Brown

Hudson ag^t Hunt

Wright ag^t Hall

Smith ag^t Newman

Grandjury discharg^d

Order concerning m^rs Sarah Pickering

Veering discharg^d

Audit for Gillams Accompt^s

Hubart Fined 40^s

Blake alias Briggs Sentenc^d

Order to Summon the Exec^rs of the late Gov^rs will

Burrell & Adams’s bond forfit^d

Adams’s presentm^t continued & order for Summons

Punnell’s imprisonm^t continued till Shee finde Security

Forbes Fined 4^li

Order for Dubleday’s bond for good behavio^r

Townsend & Thayers discharge to m^rs Penn

November 12^th 1674 @

Order for Margar^t Stevens returning to Charlestown

Connigraves fine remitted to 10^s & fees

Nickson Fined 5^li

Dobleday Fined 5^li