51 The Verdict of the Jury

    [ca. April 15 1656]

    The verdict of the Jury In the case between John Glover Gentleman plaintiff against Mr. Henry Dunster defendant.

    Wee Agree aboute the Inventory

    as it [was] brought in

    140—0—0

    The pres and the proffitts of itt

    40—0—0

    The prise of Mr. Days house

    30—0—0

    Debts received by Mr. Dunster

    143—0—0

    More debts received by Mr. Dunster of Pecocke and Still

    015—0—0

    Received of Mr. Humphryes

    080–

    Item the plate mentioned in the Inventorye more acknowledged in the Courte by Mr. Dunster one silver tankard and one tipt Jugge and a silver plate

    Item one watch

    Item acknowledged by Mr. Dunster twelve reeme of refuse paper

    Item the [profitt] of the Houses and lands in Cambridge

    177—10—0

    Item given by Mr. Harris

    040—00—0

    Item the House in Boston sold to Mr. Atkinsonn

    200—0—0

    Item Houshold stuffe at Sudbury

    005—0—0

    Item rent received for the farme at Sudbury six yeares

    060—0—0

    Item the rent of the stocke of 15 kinde

    067—10—0

    Item the prise of eight steeres and bulls and fiften kinde

    118—16—0

    Item the rent received for the farme at Sudburye seaven yeares

    042—0—0

    Item the rent of meadowe

    010—0—0

    Item two swine two pounds

    002—0—0

    1170—16—00

    Item lead panns

    Item the farme that Robert Wilson now occupieth to be Mr. Glovers

    Item all the bookes of Mr. Glovers that cam to Mr. Dunster whereof he promised to give in a Cattologue

    Item the farme that Goodman Rice now occupieth to be Mr. Glovers

    Item that Mr. Dunster shall give to the Courte an accounte accordinge to the atatchment when the Honoured Court shall require it.

    Charles Chadwick in the name of the rest.

    Henry Dunster Papers. See I. Thomas, The History of Printing in America (1874 edition), i. 383–384, where this is printed with differences. Also copied in David Pulsifer, transcripts of documents in Middlesex County Court, i. 91–93. For further decisions in the case see Nos. 53, 57 and 58 following.