PART I


    Att a County Court held at Boston 31th of ye 8th mo 1671


    • Ri: Bellingham esqr Gour
    • Major Eli: Lusher

    • Jno Leverett esqr Dept Gour
    • Edward Tyng
    • William Stoughton

    Grand Jurie was the Same of Julie Court

    Jurie of Tryalls

    • Capt Sam: Scarlett
    • Joseph Joy
    • Jacob Newell
    • Benja Negus
    • James Blake
    • Nath: Fisher
    • Hopestill Foster Jur
    • Joseph Weeks
    • Jno Baker
    • Jno Crofts
    • Samll Belchior
    • Jno Thurston

    [Sheafe v. Hawkins]

    Sampson Sheafe plantiff against Thomas Hawkins Defendt in an Action of the case for not giueing possession of certaine howses & Land lieing in Boston due to said Sheafe vpon or by a Deed or Mortgage for the same forfeited bearing Date the fiueteenth of June One Thousand six hundred seauenty & one refference thereto beeing had with other Due Damages according to Attachmt Dated the 6th of October 1671 After the Attachmt & Euidences in the case produced were read comitted to the Jurie & are on file with the Records of this Court the Jurie brought in their Verdict they found for the plantiff that the Defendant giue him possession according to Attachmt & costs of Court wch is twenty fiue shillings & eight pence.

    Execucion Issued 5th of ye 11 mo 1671

    [Attested copies from the Suffolk registry of deeds (S. F. 1458.9) show that in 1667 Hawkins mortgaged the property in question to Mr. Thacher for 200l at six per cent interest, payable in 1671, in which year he mortgaged the same property to “Mr. Sampson Scheafe” for 177l 15s 8d at six per cent, payable “within the said yeere.” Sheafe’s account, presented during a later development of the case, follows (S. F. 1458.11):

    Thomas Hawkins of Boston. Inholder. Dr

    1671 June 15th

    To ballance due to mee for wch hee gaue mee a writing for his house & Land



    To Cash. pd mr Thomas Thacher Senr wch sd Hawkins owed him for 200h principall hee recd at interest due to the last of May


    Octobr 19th

    To Cash pd charges in Suing him for possession & Levying the Execution



    To ditto pd Recording the severall mortgages & writings I disbursed on the house & Land viz:



    2000. boards. 3li Locks. 5a



    Carpenter & Bricklayer



    Goo: Drury for Shingling the house



    Goo: Cooper for whiting the house


    May. 7th

    Joshua Atwater for Nayles



    Interest of 218li 15s ld May 71 to 20th March 1671 being a yeare 3mo 3 dayes



    Interest of 186li from 15th of June to March 20th being nine monthes



    Interest of 24li 5s disburst on the house till it was sold



    So the house & Land cost mee





    And the charge of two actions commenced agt mee since for which I tooke out no Execution I calculate about 15s besides writings between mr Howlett mr Stoughton & my Selfe.


    Pr Contra is Cr


    li s d

    1671 Octobr 19th

    per Land & house bought of sd Hawkins



    I sold one part to mr Howlett if hee paide mee ready mony



    The rest to mr Stoughton




    Hawkins’s comments on the account follow (S. F. 1485. 10):

    Thomas Hawkins his Objection agt Mr Sampson Sheafes Account In prs To the 2d article wherein hee charges pd mr Thacher 218li 15s hee desires to see a discharge & the Mortgage delivdd up wch hee made to mr Thacher for 218li:15s:

    2ly Whereas hee charges 1ll:7s 8. for Suing & Levying the Execution, hee desires to see a particuler account thereof.

    3ly Whereas hee charges for Recording mortgages & other writings 00:17 hee knowes no reason why hee should beare the charge of Recording his papers besides hee was at his own Liberty whether hee would doe or not & if done it was for his own Security.

    4ly Whereas hee charges 24li 5s 4d for disburstments &c hee knowes no reason why hee should pay anything for hee puld down better covering then hee put on, besides hee charges for Locks & hee knowes not that the house had need of Locks nor of seuerall other things as whiting &c which was altogether unnecessary charges & all without his order & after hee had sd house in his hands.

    5ly Whereas hee charges for interest of 218:15—24li 13s 10d hee doth not see any ground or reason why hee should allow any more then the 218li 15s that being the full wth interest of what hee owed mr Thacher for which his house was sold from him & in mr Sheafes own Acco hee saith hee bought it in October. 1671. & yet chargeth interest till May 1672 therefore objects agt the 24:13:10.

    6ly Whereas hee charges for interest of 180li—18li 18s he cannot understand what hee intends by it, besides before hee had the house in his hands wch he tooke for his satisfaction; and that hee should turn mee out of my house contrary to his promiss & yet afterwards demand interest hee leaves to any indiffirent men to judge the equity of.

    7ly Hee Sued mee & recovered a judgmt agt mee before the mortgage was forfited yet afterwards charges as in the two Last Articles no less for interest then 43li 11:10, contrary to all law or Reason.

    8ly Whereas hee charges interest for mony Laide out on the houseing; what hee Laide out was after hee had them in his own possession & without any order of mine; besides hee pulls down spoiles & giues away wt hee pleases & giues no acco thereof & yet charges for his disburstmts interest at his own pleasure.

    9ly Further by his own account hee sold the houseing for 567li and by the same Acco when hee tooke the house from me I owed him but 396:11s 8d if mr Thachers debt were 218li 15s but I can proue hee sold the houseing & land for 580h So I am wronged in the Sale thereof no less 194h whereas I can prove upon Oath, hee saide hee would not take a penny more then his first principall.

    Boston 22th Aprill. 1675

    Thomas Hawkings

    Sheafe and Hawkins indulged in much subsequent litigation over this property. See below, pp. 275–7, 416, 564, 684, 705.]

    Milton v. Eliott

    Thomas Milton Attourney of mr John Nethway mrcht plantiff against Joseph Elliott Seaman Defendt in an Acion of the case for Damage don him the said Milton by carelesenese of him the said Elliott & the rest of the company in keeping no wach abord the Katch Elizabeth & Mary whereof the said Milton was then Comander, when the said Milton was on Shoare & could not get on board by which carelesenesse of the said Elliott & company the said vessell was set on Fire & burned with the goods that were in her to the vallue of six hundred pounds or thereabouts & due damages according to Attachmt Dat the 26th of Octobr 1671 . . . the Jurie . . . found for the Defendt Costs of Court

    Parker v. Champeroone & Compa

    Richard Parker of Boston plantiff agst Capt Francis Champeroone Abraham Corbett & Capt Walter Barefoot Defendts in an Action of Debt due by bond to the sume of one hundred & fowre score pounds & due Damages for non payment according to Attachmt Dat the 30th of Sepr 1671 . . . the Jurie . . . found for the plt the forfeiture of the bond & costs of Court & on ye Request of the defendt ye Court chancired632 it to one hundred pounds in spetie according to bond ye Debt beeing ninety pounds

    Execucion Issued 15th of 9br 1671

    Leuerett v. Ely

    John Leuerett esqr one of the Ouerseers of the Last will & testament of Capt John Cullick deceased plantiff agst Richard Ely Defendt in an Action of the case for his not performing his Obligacion vnder his hand & seale bearing date in the Month of January 1663 by the makeing payment of one hundred & fiuety pounds to John Cullick & one hundred & fiuety pounds to Elizabeth Cullick Sonn & Daughter to the [2] said Capt John Cullick according to his obligacion & all due Damages according to Attachmt Dat the fiue & twentieth Day of October 1671 . . . the Jurie . . . found for the plt the forfeiture of the bond & Costs of Court. The Court vpon mocion of the plt chancired the bond to three hundred & eighteen pounds in Money & Costs of Court twenty seauen Shillings

    Execucion Issued ye 15th of 1st mo 1671/72

    Wilkins v. Webb

    John Wilkins plantiff against Joseph Web Defendt in an Action of the case for withholding either by himselfe or his Assignes or by both himselfe & his Assignes a part of that howseing in Boston which is the propper right of the said Wilkins & all other Due Damages according to Attachmt Dated the twenty fifth Day of October 1671. . . . the Jurie . . . found for the Defendt costs of Court wch was seauen shillings & one penny.

    Addams v. Hudson

    Nathaniell Addams of Boston Turner ye Elder Attourney to & for Robert Owen now or late of sd Boston Vintnr plantiff against Capt William Hudson Defendt in an Acion of the case for withholding & unjustly deteyning the sum of sixty fiue pounds seauen shillings & eleven pence of Currant Money of New England from the said Robert Owen which appears to be due to the said Robert Owen from the said William Hudson vppon an Accoumpt made vp betwene them by Mr Anthony Stoddard Capt William Dauis and Mr Brattle who were appoynted by the Court to Auditt the Acompts betwene the sd Owen & the sd Hudson with other due Damages according to Attachmt Dat ye 28th of Septembr 1671 . . . the Jurie . . . found for the Defendt Costs of Court twenty sixe shillings.

    Man v. Whitcomb

    John Man plt against James Whitcomb Defendt & the plt not appearing after due calling was declared nonsuited.

    Clarke v. Nicholls

    Thomas Clarke late of Plymouth plantiff against the Goods or Estate of John Nicholls sonn to Mordecay Nicolls late of Boston deceased in the possession of John Wiswall Snr Guardian to the said John Nicholls Deft in an Action of the case for non payment for disburstments which the sd Clarke hath laid out in building a new howse upon the Ground & repayring the old howseing of the said John Nicholls at the request of his Mother late wife to the said Thomas Clarke & vpon her promise that the said Clarke should be [3] paid for the same out of her Estate which Disburstments haue beene apprized at seauenty fiue pounds with interest & other due Damages according to Attachmt Dat the 26th of 8br 1671 . . . the Jury. . . brought in a spetiall verdict Vizt If man & wife haue power to make bargains one with another yt will stand good in Law then wee finde for the plantiffe seauenty fiue pounds & Costs of Court if not wee finde for the Defendt costs of Court. The Magistrates on perusall of this case & Verdict Judgd for the Defendt costs of Court the plantiff appealed from this Judgment to the next Court of Assistants & the said Thomas Clarke as prinsipall in seaventy fiue pounds & John Saffin & Anthony Chickley in thirty fiue pounds apeice acknowledged themselues bound to the Tresurer of the County of Suffolke & parties conserned on condicion that the sd Clarke shall prosecute his Appeale from the Judgment of this Court to the next Court of Assistance to efect.

    [On June 28, 1660, James Balston of Boston, ship-carpenter, deeded to Mordecai Nicholls a house and land in Boston “on highway next to Mr. Clarke” (S. F. 1404.5). The house was a modest one of two stories, with two rooms to a floor. Mordecai appears to have been a seafaring man turned shopkeeper; he dealt in canvas, cottons and woolens. His estate, valued on April 25, 1664, after his death, included the housing and grounds, 150l, a barque and her cargo, 159l 18s 6d; “sow & piggs in the yard,” 1l; furniture “in the parlor,” including one standing bedstead and a trundle bed, 8l; the stock of cloth was kept “in the Chamber over the parlor”; the total valuation was 532l 17s 3d (S. F. 1404.7). Shortly after this, the widow Nicholls made an agreement with Thomas Clarke who was to be her next husband. In S. F. 1179.4 is the following copy of this “bargain”:

    This writing witnesseth. Between Thomas Clarke late of Plymouth, yeoman, and Alice Nicholls of Boston, widdow That whereas there is an intent of marriage between the sd partys the Lord succeeding theire intentions in convenient time: The Agreement therefore is that the houseing & Land now in the possession of the sd Alice Nicholls shalbee reserved as a Stock for her Son, John Nicholls for him to enjoy & posses at the age of twenty and one years in the meanetime to bee improved by the parents towards his Education: Also that what Estate of hers the sd Alice shalbee found & comitted to the sd mr Clarke—if it should so please the Lord to take the sd Alice out of this Life before the sd Thomas Clarke Shee shall then have then power to dispose of all the sd Estate sometimes hers so as it seemes good unto her:—moreover—if it shall please the Lord to take away the sd Thomas Clarke by death, before the sd Alice She Surviving, then the sd Alice shall have and enjoy her own Estate Shee brought with her or the value thereof and two hundred pounds added thereto of the Estate Left by the sd Thomas Clarke all which the sd Thomas Clarke doth hereby promise and binde himselfe to allow of and performe as a Covenant upon theire marriage—In Witness of all which, the sd Thomas Clarke hath Signed and Sealed this present writing unto Peter Oliver and William Bartholmew of Boston for the use and behoofe of the sd Alice Nicholls. Dated this twentieth day of January, 1664.

    per me Thomas Clarke & a Seale

    After this agreement a somewhat different arrangement to safeguard the stepson’s rights in his mother’s property was concluded by the Court on February 3, 1664/5 (S. F. 1404.7):

    At a County Court held at Boston 3d Febo 1664

    This Court being informed that since the Inventory of Mordecai Nicholls was produced in Court, the providence of god by the loss of the vessall & seurall debts due to the sd Estate thereby falling short to the value of two hundred pounds & odde & the widdow being ready to dispose of herselfe: The Court judged it meete to order that the house & Land mentioned in the Inventory at one hundred & Fifty pounds shalbee & is hereby secured to bee part of John Nicholls hir Sonnes portion; And that the sd widdow Alice Nicholls his mother shall Satisfy & pay unto her sd Sonn—at the age of Fourteen yeares the Sume of Fifty pound more besides the sd house & Land to his Guardian to bee improved for his use till hee come to age, & the mother to haue the use of the Sonnes portion—till that time hee come of age to choose his Guardian; for his Education—, & in the meane time the mother & Capt Clapp are appointed his guardians & that the mother the widdow haue all the rest of the Estate as her portion—& in case the Childe dye before hee attaine his age, the mother to haue the whole.

    Allowed & approved of by the Court

    Having married the widow Nicholls, Thomas Clarke moved into her house, which proved to be somewhat cramped. The neighbors reported their conversation (S. F. 1179.9):

    Judith Snowsell aged about Seaven & Thirty yeares deposeth upon oath . . . mr Clark & his wife being at or house, they began a discourse about the house they lived in: Shee saying it was old and that hee would doe well to build her a new house But mr Clarke made answer that he would never doe any such thing as to build upon anoth[er] mans ground Then shee replyed yt hee needed not to feare his satisfaction againe in case hee did build for her for shee said the rent of her house would in time pay him: But mr Clarke made answer that such paymt would not doe, For hee said yt would bee a long time in paying indeed And further this depont saith that shee told hir husband that what estate hee had was hers: and what was hers was her owne And further saith that her husband demanded to see her Inventory But shee tould him hee should never see it while shee lived And further this depont Saith that mrs Lake being at or house told this deponent that shee was going to see ms Clarke, for shee was informed as shee said that her husband would not allowe her things that were fitting for her, but was very Churlish and dogged to her. But this depont tould mrs Lake that ms Clarke wronged her husband in the same very much for hee would allowe things yt were Sufficient for her but shee would not allowe thereof her selfe And thereupon this depont went along wth ms Lake to mr Clarkes house at that time when ms Lake did aske ms Clarke if her husband would not allowe her things yt were Covenient for her: For shee tould her yt shee heard hee would not. But shee did then disowne to ms Lake and my selfe what was reported concerning her husband as to that particular And further this deponent Saith that shee being at ms Clarkes house one day the said mr Clarke came in and brought wth him a small leg of mutton and a peece of fresh beefe and shee found fault with him for bringing in soo much meate and tould him yt a pound of beefe at a tyme was enough for to bring in: But hee made answer that if shee did not like it shee might let it alone for hee said hee would not make him selfe a laughing stocke to bring in soe little meate at a tyme And further this deponent Saith not

    Taken upon oath this 30th octobr 1671

    Before mee Humphry Dauie633 Comissr

    William, John and Andrew Clarke, aged respectively 37, 30, and 25 years, deposed (S.F. 1179.11–12) that their father, upon their stepmother’s continued request, and her promise to pay for it, built the new house, leanto, and shop in Boston, and repaired the old one; the improvements were apprized at 75l but cost above 100l. Also (S. F. 1179.7):

    The testemony of Rodger Clap Aged sixty two years or thereabouts. Saith that mr Thomas Clarke hauing taken Downe one end of the howse which was Mordecay Nicolls & built a new Roome in the place did shew me the new roome & said that it had cost him a great deale of money but hee did keepe an Accoumpt of itt & did intend that it should bee in part of that two hundred pounds which his wife was to have out of his Estate after his death this deponent asked him how if his wife should dye before him he Answered then hee would freely giue it to John and would have noething for itt.

    Taken upon Oath the 31st of 8th mo 1671 before mee Anthony Stoddard Comissr

    Owned in Court by Capt Clap . . . as Attests Free Grace Bendall Cler.

    Alice Clarke died before her second husband. Her son John Nicholls, then aged seventeen, chose as guardian Elder John Wiswall (S. F.1179.8), who was obliged to seek the aid of the court to obtain possession of his ward’s house, land, and 50l, as appears by the following record (S. F. 1179.3):

    At a County Court held at Boston 25th of 5 mo 1671

    Elder John Wiswall guardian to John Nicholls plt against Thomas Clarke Defendt in an Action of the Case for with holding an Estate left by his mother Alice Clarke by will which will was made according to contract before her marriage with the said Thomas Clarke beeing formerly the Estate of Mordecay Nicolls his father Deceased being an Estate for the most part of moveables & Debts & all Due Damages according to Attachmt & at the 20th of the fifth month 1671 After the Attachmt & Evidences in the case produced were read comitted to the Jurie & are on file with the record of this Court the Jurie brought in their verdict they found for the plantiff, that the Defendt deliver all ye Estate now in his Custody or that he hath any wayes disposed of or did belong to his Late wife Alice that was hers before marriage with him except what was disposed of by a former verdict this is to be deliuered to the plantiff for the use of John Nicholls or two hundred pound damage in money & costs of Court.

    Thomas Clarke then sued his stepson, as appears from the entry, in order to recover the cost of repairing the old house and building the new one. In his “Reasons of Appeale” from this judgment, dated February 28, 1671/2 (S. F. 1179.8), Thomas Clarke rehearses the fact of his contract with the widow Nicholls and declares that the court order of February 3, 1665, had never been made known to him, nor had her first husband’s inventory. He argues that if his wife had had the right to devise property by will, she had the right to make a “bargain” with her future husband, and that this pre-nuptial agreement was a valid contract of which the court should have taken cognizance. “The Jurys verdict being as it is, I am doubtfull whether the Honorable Court Considered my Case as it is Circumstanced per the Sd Contract.” He concludes (S. F. 1179.8):

    My Wife & I although as man & Wife one, in personall relation yet Considering our Relation to ye Contract two in Estates . . . & Soe Shee noe femm Couert nor under Couert Barron—And might as well make bargaines with mee in hir Life as make a will at hir Death, and If Shee hath power to giue mee a legacy, much more hath Shee power to pay hir debts, debts being allways to bee paid before Legacys. . . .

    Instead of admitting an appeal, the Court of Assistants apparently ordered a review of the case by the same court. This was done at the Spring session of 1672—see pp. 98–9, below.]

    Atwater v. Ely

    Joshua Atwater plantiff against Richard Ely Defendt according to Attachmt Dat ye 21th of 7mo 1671, the plt withdrew his Acion.

    Patten v. Naylor

    Thomas Patten Attourney of Nathaniell Patten plantiff against Edward Naylor & Richard Walker Defendts according to Attachmt Dat ye 9th of Octobr: 1671, the Acion beeing cald Edward Naylor appeared in open Court & acknowledged a Judgment against himselfe & Estate of eighty pounds vnto Thomas Patten abouesd which the Court Chancired to fiuety pounds & one shillinge.

    Execucion Issued for 51li ls 00d ye 4th of xbr 1671

    Greenough v. Hazelden

    Elizabeth Greenough Attourney of her husband William Greenough plt against John Hazelden Defendt in an Acion of the case for better security of a bond of forty three pounds with condicion to pay the sume of twenty one pounds tenn shillings in money & other due damages according to Attachment Dated the 17 Day of Octobr 1671 . . . the Jurie . . . found for the Defendt Costs of Court

    Hallett v. Mansfeild

    George Hallett plantiff against Paul Mansfeid Defendt in an Action of the case for withholding a Debt of sixteene pounds due to the sd Hallett per Bill for a servant he sould the said Mansfeild with Due Damages according to Attachmt Dated the twelveth Day of the sixth Month 1671 . . . the Jurie . . . [4] found for the plantiff seauenteene pounds Damage according to bill & Costs of Court twenty eight shillings & two pence.

    Execucion Issued 15th of 9br 1671

    Norden v. Auis

    Samuell Norden plantiff against William Auis Defendt in an Action of Debt of Eleuen pounds or thereabouts due by Booke & due Damages according to Attachmt Dated the 20th of October 1671 . . . the Jurie . . . found for the plantiff thirteene pounds eighteene shill & six pence Damage & Costs of Court twenty fowre Shillings & tenn pence.

    Smith v. Cartwright

    John Smith Senr of Dorchester plantiff against Arthur Cartwright of sd Dorchester Defendt in an Action of the case for slandering his Sonn John Smith in sayeing hee broke into his howse & tooke away nine pounds & tenn shillings in money; & positiuely chargeing him to be the person that did it, & no other & this to the great reproach of the said John Smith & his freinds & heereby takeing away his good name both at home & abroad, with all due damages according to Attachmt Dated 18 7mo 1671 . . . the Jurie . . . found for the plantiff twenty pounds or an Acknowledgmt to the Courts Satisfaction & also the same acknowledgemt at Dorchester at a publique Towne Meeting & costs of Court forty one shillings & tenn pence.

    Atkinson v. Trumble

    Theodore Atkinson senior plantiff against John Trumball defendt according to Attachmt Dated ye 26th of October 1671 ye plt not appearing after due calling was nonsuited.

    Whitcomb v. Burnam

    James Whitcomb plantiff against the Goods Debts or Estate of Thomas Burnam of Barbados Defendt according to Attachmt Dated the 25th of 8br 1671 The plt not appearing was declared nonsuited.

    Newcomb v. Naylor

    Andrew Newcomb plantiff against Edward Naylor Defendt in an Action of Debt of Nine pounds three shillings in money due by bill & due Damages according to Attachmt Dated the fourth of the sixth mo 1671 . . . the Jurie . . . found for the plantiff nine pounds eight shillings money Damage & costs of Court twenty seauen shillings & eight pence.

    Gefford v. Atherton

    John Jefford

    Huchinson v. Douty

    Eliakim Huchinson assigne of Edward Rushworth or whomeeuer else conserned plantiff against Thomas Doughty as prinsipall, & James Grant of Yorke Peter Grant & John Taylor as seuerty or either of them Defendts in an Action of the Case for forfeiture or breach of Bond or obligacion of twelue hundred [5] pounds vnder there hands & seales bearing date the first Day of June 1665 for non performance of a Couenant or Agreement of the Date abouesaid vnder the hand & seale of the sd Tho: Doughty with other due Damages according to Attachmt Dated 19th of Septbr 1671 . . . the Jury . . . found for the plantiff the forfeiture of the bond & costs of Court which was thirty six shillings.

    Execucion Issued for 1201li 16s 00 ye 5th of 11 mo 1671

    Patten v. Wise & Belchior

    Thomas Patten Attourney of Nathaniell Patten of Dorchestr plantiff against Andrew Belchior of Cambridge & Joseph Wise of Roxbury senior in an Action of the case for the forfeiture of a bond of twenty pounds for non payment of a Debt of tenn pounds eight shillings with the alowance for forbearance as more fully appeares by the condicion of the said bond & due Damages according to Attachmt Dat the 25th of Octobr 1671 . . . the Jurie . . . found for the plantiff the forfeiture of the bond & Costs of Court thirty six shillings.

    Execucion Issued for 21li 16s 00d ye 26th of xbr 1671

    Thair v. Parsons

    Richard Thaire of Brantry plt agst William Parsons of Boston Joyner Defendt in an Action of review of an Action of ye case comenced by the said William Parsons against the said Richard Thaire at a County Court held at Boston in Apr last & also obtayned a Judgment from the said Court to the vallue of seauenty six pounds fiue shillings & costs of Court forty fiue shillings & eight pence (which complaint) was for disburstmts laid out & payd by the said William Parsons about the building of a Katch & due Damages according to Attachmt Dat the 24th Day of Octobr 1671 . . . the Jurie . . . found for the plantiff seauenty eight pounds tenn shillings & eight pence Damage & Costs of Court The Defendt appealed from this Judgment to the next Court of Assistants & William Parsons as prinsipall in one hundred & fiuety pounds & James Euerell & John Williams as suerties in seauenty fiue pounds apiece acknowledged themselves bound to . . . prosecute his appeale . . .

    Bacon v. Gold

    Samuell Bacon eldest sonn of George Bacon plt against Edward Gold of Hingham Defendt in an Action of the case to the vallue of forty & fiue pounds for withholding one third part of a Dwelling howse & seuerall parcells of land lyeing & beeing in hingham belonging to the said Samuell Bacon which were the lands of his said father deceased [6] & also for improueing the said lands aboue fowre & twenty years with all due Damages according to Attachmt Dated the three & twentieth Day of October 1671 . . . the Jurie . . . found for the plantiff one third part of the howseing land & meadow according to Attachmt & twenty pounds for improuemt & Costs of Court twenty two shillings & fowre pence.

    Idem vrsus Eundm

    Samuell Bacon plantiff against Edward Gold Defendt in an Action of the case to the vallue of forty pounds for the said Edward Gold withholding & refusing to make satisfaction vnto the said Samuell Bacon vpon demand for a Cow & all her increase about fiue & twenty years with all due damages according to Attachmt Dated the twelft Day of September 1671 . . . the Jurie . . . found for the plantiff sixteene pounds & costs of Court forty three shillings & two pence.

    Couch v. Barefoot

    Robert Couch plt against Walter Barefoot Defendt according to Attachmt Dat ye 25th of July 1671 the case beeing called the plantiff not appearing was declared non suited

    Kelly v. Blower

    Rodger Kelly plantiff against John Blower Defendt in an action of vnjust molestacion in attaching & captiuating his person & also his fishing shallop in the cheefe634 of fishing for a considerable tyme by which his men broke ofe from him which were much indebted to him to his great & vnsufferable Damage in a vexatiose manner & without any grounds according to Attachmt Dated the 10th of Octobr 1671 . . . the Jurie brought in their verdict they found for ye defendt Costs of Court

    The Court considering Rodger Kellys vexatiose suite agst John Blower sentancd him to pay forty shillings fine in money to the County according to Law & treble Damages to the John Blower the Defendt.

    Golden v. Clements

    Peter Golden Attourney of Walter Barefoot plt against Edward Clements Defendt in an Action of the case for not payeing a debt of twenty one pounds & od money owned by the said Clements due by bill or soe much as shall appeare by bill or witnes & due interest & all others due Damages according to Attachmt Dated the 24th of July 1671 . . . the Jurie . . . found for ye Defendt Costs of Court the plantiff appealed from this Judgmt [7] to the next Court of Assistants & Capt Walter Barefoot in twenty pounds & Isaac Woodie & George Broughton in tenn pounds apeice acknowledged themselves bound to . . . prosecute his appeale . . .

    [“Captain Walter Barefoot chirurgeon” was a well-known planter of Dover, N. H., which at this time was included in the Massachusetts jurisdiction. The facts of this case are explained by the following documents and depositions, together with Barefoot’s reasons of appeal and Clements’ answer. The Commissioner’s Court mentioned in the deposition of Elias Stileman is one of the few references we have at this period to a special court instituted in 1651 in order to relieve the County Court. It consisted of seven freemen annually chosen by the freemen of Boston, and authorized by the Court of Assistants to hear and determine all civil actions not exceeding the sum of 10l; the commissioners had a clerk and kept records (The Book of the General Lawes and Libertyes 1660, p. 13; Whitmore ed., p. 133). In S. F. 1077 will also be found copy of writ dated July 24, 1671, with return dated August 3; record of bond given by Isaac Woody and Broughton to appeal the case; testimony of Isaac Woodey, similar to Stileman’s. Barefoot lost the case on appeal; his bill of costs is here given as a sample of that sort of document.

    S. F. 1077.6

    I under written doe promise to pay unto Capt Walter Barefoot of Boston Twenty one pounds nine shillings in goods.

    Boston 29: 3. mo 64:

    per Edward Clements

    Vera Coppia as Richard Steleman Cleric paid of this bill five pounds fifteene shillings & 2d

    per Edward Clements

    Sworne per Capt Walter Barefoot yt ye above written was the hand writing of mr Edw: Clements in Commission Court. 3d 7: mo 1669

    The Deposition of Elias Stileman.

    This Deponent Saith yt some time in August now last past I heard Capt Barefoot saye uppon some discourse passing about a difference yt was betweene him selfe & Mr Edw: Clements yt he ye sd: Barefoot had as much Silk as came to five pounds wch was made recitd upon ye back side of a bill or bond under ye said Clements hand, these words was Spoken yt day yt Martin Hall was one board Said Clements ship when Capt Barefoot & said Clements had words or discourse about ye Said Silke & further Saith not.

    Sworne in Commision Court ye 3d 7: mo 1669 Rich: Steleman Cleric

    Vera Coppia as attests Rich: Stileman Cleric

    This is a true Coppie as Attests Free Grace Bendall Cler.

    Barefoot’s power of attorney to Peter Goulding (S. F. 1077.3) follows:

    Know all men that I Walter Barefoot of Dover Chyrurgeon have made ordained constituted & appoynted & doe hereby made ordaine constitute & appoynt my trusty freind Peter Goulding of Boston my true & lawfull Attoumey for mee & in my place & stead to aske require & receive of & from Richard Cooper or his heires Executre Administrs or Assignes ten pounds due to mee by bill and a certaine summe in goods due from Edward Clements due by bill & also eight poimds Sterling due from William Wright of Dorchester, by bill or from their or either of their heires Executors Administrs or Assignes And I herby give my sd Attourney full power (if he see cause) the sd debts or any of them & all other due dammages thereon or therby ariseing to sue for At Law by Action or Actions vnto judgment or Judgments & therupon Execution or Executions to take out & ye same to cause to be satisfyed & such satisfaction to receive & to doe & execute or cause to be done & executed all & every other Act & Acts divice & divices in ye law whatsoever that I might or could doe if I were persona[ly] present. And I doe & will at all times rattefy & confirme whatsoever my sd Attourney shall lawfully doe or cause to be done in & about ye premesies In witnes whereof I have hervnto put my hand & seale this eighth day of June 1669 & in ye xxi yeare of ye reigne of King Charles ye second &c

    Walter Barefoote


    Signed sealed & delivered in the presence of vs.

    James Gundry William Smith John Mesinger

    S. F. 1077.8

    Edward Clements Aged thirty years or there abouts Testifieth uppon Oath that he oweth Mr Walter Barefoot nothing neither Directly nor Indirectly & that to his knowledge he never gave the Said Barefoot Any bill for the payment of any thing

    Taken upon Oath this 23d of August 1671 before me.

    . . . Richard Parker Commis[sioner]

    S. F. 1077.4

    Walter Barefoot Or Peter Goulding his Attorneys Reasons of Appeale from a Judgment of A County Court held in Boston on the 31t of October 1671. in which Action he was plaintif agt Edward Clements def

    First for that his Cause of Action mentioned in the Attachment (to wit) A debt of Twenty one pounds due by Bill owned by the sd Edward Clements due by Bill or soe much as shall appeare due by Bill or Witnes & due interest &c. is sufficiently proved. That there was such A Bill by the testimonie of Isaack Woodey his first oath that five or six pounds was written on A Bill which he then thought was an obligation from the sd Clements: But when he had better bethought himself being lawfully required did farther testefy that Edward Clements did owne he had given Walter Barefoot A Bill for the payment of Twenty one pounds odd money & that he did see this bill which he the sd Clements owned to be his &c. And secondly Martin Hall his Additionall oath sayeth that Walter Barefoot demaunded the abovesd debt of Edward Clements due by Bill which Edward Clements owned was due. All which is enough to prove there was such A Bill & debt, as by Refference to them Testimonies had doth more at large appeare though thervpon the plaintif could not have the Judgment of that Court for him wherfore he appealed.

    Secondly, Edward Clements his owneing of the wholl sd debt to be due is clearly proved by his paying parte therof, proved by Isaack Woody his first oath, & by Martin Hall his Additionall oath both which doe mention some silke pd in parte. Soe that though the plaintif was negligent in causeing witneses to subscribe to the Bill when Edward Clements did subscribe it, that Defect is salved & made vp by cleare proofes that there was such a Bill & is yet unpayed. But because he had not a judgment of that Court for his soe just debt therfore he appealed.

    Thirdly As it was in the sd honored Court pleaded that Edward Clements never dealt with the plaintif much les gave A Bill to him for payment, which plea was weakly grounded on Edward Clement’s owne oath (as I suppose) the contrary to which is evinced by Samuel Warkman’s bond assigned vnto him pd sd Clements by the plaintif And that there is noe truth in his sd oath appeareth plainely by his owne acknowledging otherwise at other times, sworne too by Isaack Woodey & Martin Hall.

    fourthly Though some peradventure not well advised would boldly say it was an oversight for Courts to accept off parties owne oathes against one another the plaintif dares not say soe much. But humbly offereth to the wise Consideration of this Honorable Court & Gentlemen of the Jurey the plaintif his owne oath that Edward Clements did write the whole Bill as testimony equivalent unto Edward Clements owne oath that he never gave such a Bill. Wherfore leaveing them the plaintif doubteth not from what is abovesd to wit cleare proofes of A Bill & debt due & parte therof payed but to have the Judgment of this Honorable Court for the same wherfore he appealed.

    Pe: Goulding Attorney of Walter Barefoott.

    Receaued ye 27th of 12 mo 1671 per Free Grace Bendall Cler

    S. F. 1077.5

    Answers to the Reasons of Appeale Given in by Peter Goulding Attorney for Walter Barefoote as plt agt Edward Clements defendt at a county court held in boston 31 Ocktober 1671

    To the first I answer that wheras he speaketh of A Debt of Twenty one pounds due by Bill and owned by the defendt the Defendent utterly denyeth any such bill given by him and for the testimonyes there spoken off: with their Additionall Oathes: the Defendent hopeth they will be by this honoured Court, and Jury so considered off that they will be accounted of no validity

    To the second the Answer is the Defendent neuer owned paying of any such Bill only five pounds Captaine Barefoot bought of him in Silke and paid him for it; but if he set downe that; or what else he pleased upon any peice of paper; and say it is receiued upon the within written let him make use of it; only the Defendent hopeth he being not oblidged to what is within shall not suffer for what is without

    To the third the Answer is that the plaintiffe therin seemeth himselfe to owne that what was: was only the Bond due to the plaintiffe from Samuel Warkman: which was Assigned to: to ye Defendent but being by the defendt neuer receiued he haue as he conceiuethe no reason to pay it

    To the fourth I answer that I humbly conceiue the honoured Court more meet to answer it then any other; and therfore shall forbeare to make any reply to it

    per Richard Way Attor

    to Mr Edward Clements

    S.F. 1077.12

    Walter Barefoot plaintif his bill of Costs agt Edward Clements Deft

    At the County Court in Boston Octobr 31: 1671

    l s d

    for two dayes goeing to Mr Elias Styleman for coppies of Evidences


    pd to him for coppies


    pd Mr Rawson for coppies


    the Attachment & serveing it


    Entering the Action


    his owne comeing from Pascataqua to bring coppies of Martin Halls Evidence & other things & in goeing hoame to puscataqua againe six dayes


    his owne Attendance 5 dayes at Court


    writeing ye first evidences & sumoning witneses


    Isaack Woody’s attendance 4 dayes


    pd the Witneses for the first swearing so all twice & Woodys first oath & sumons


    fyleing ten papers


    ferryage outwards & hoamward




    At the Court of Assistants for Entering the Action


    pd for County Courts records


    his Attorneyes Attendance 5 dayes


    writeing reasons of Appeal


    more to be pd for the judgment because above 1011


    fyleing 13 papers




    Allowed E R S






    Oliver v. Woodmancy

    Capt James Oliuer plt against John Woodmancy Defendt in an Action of the case for not deliuering possession of a howse & Land in Boston built by the said Oliver on his owne Land & all due Damages according to Attachmt Dat the 26th of October 1671 . . . the Jurie . . . found for the plantiff possession of the howse & Land in controversy & costs of Court the Defendt appealed from this Judgment to the next Court of Assistants & ye sd John Woodmancy in three hundred & fiuety pounds as prinsipall & Richard Wharton & James Whitcomb in one hundred & seauenty fiue pounds apeice as suerties acknowledged themselves bound to . . . prosecute his appeale . . .

    Bucher v. Bastar

    Mary Butcher plantiff against Joseph Bastar defendt in an Action of trespasse vpon the case for his building & intrenching vpon her Land before the Dore of her Dwelling howse to her great Damage with other due damages according to Attachmt Dat ye 26th of 8br 1671 . . . the Jurie brought in a spetiall verdict vizt if it be soe that the Deeds of the Defendt be according to law we find for the Defendant costs of Court if not wee finde for the plantiff according to Attachmt & costs of Court the Magistrates declared for the defendt & ye Costs of Court were thirty two shillings & six pence.

    Wilkins v. Web

    John Wilkins plt agst Nehemiah Webb defendt in an Action of the case for suffitient security that the said Nehemiah Webb doth & shall make good vnto the said John Wilkins all that right which he hath sould him of howse & Land as by Deede will more fully appeare & due damages according to Attachmt Dat the 27th day of July 1671 . . . the Jurie . . . found for the Defendt costs of Court which was twenty two shillings & six pence. [8]

    Hoppin v. Downes

    Stephen Hoppin plantiff against Mehitabell Downes the relict of Edmond Downes Marchant deceased Defendt according to Attachmt Dat ye 3 of October 1671 there not appearing that any goods of the Defendt was Attached the plt was nonsuited.

    Sprague v. Collins

    Richard Sprauge Master of the shipp Arabella in the behalfe of Mr Thomas Knights owner of said Shipp plantiff against Robert Collins defendt in an Action of the case for absenting himselfe from the service of the said Knights or his Order & disowening his service whereas he came over a servant to ye said Knights which is to his great Damage with other due damages according to Attachmt dated the 4th of 7br 1671 . . . the Jurie . . . found for the defendt Costs of Court wch is thirty fiue shillings & two pence.

    [A case of kidnapping, the facts of which are explained in Collins’s Answer to Sprague’s Reasons of Appeal from this Judgment, dated March 4, 1671 (S. F. 1081.3):

    Robert Collings being At three severall Courts heild at Boston xceeuted Against by mr Richard Spreague & mr Peter Ledged [spelled Lidgett in S. F. 1081.4] in his behalf, And they in every of the sayd Courts Cast: vpon Cleere & just evidence, And yett still they rest vnsatisffied witnes their present appeale: & this we humbly present as an answer to his reasons (Soe Caled) viz; first: he begin his reasons with a false Assertion in affirming that the sd Collings Came one bord the Ship Arrabella, Rich: Sprague master as servant to mr Knights owner of the sayd ship, which sayd mr Knights he never did see nor At that time heard off by name, And therfore Could never become his Servant; But the grounds of his Coming one borde the sayd ship: was by meanes of a suttle Fellow which mett with him in london who sayd he was Botswaine of the ship Arrabella, & he the sayd pretended Botswaine (taken notice of the sayd defendants weaknes & infirmity; he then did improue his oppertunity to gaine his purpose saying that he was Botswaine of the ship Arrabella as aforesayd; And he then Asked the sayd defendant if he would goe to sea: telling him that he the sayd defended should haue 18s in money as soune as he Came one bord the sayd ship & also 18s a moneth otherwise vntill he Came to new England, & sayd otherwise that he would be a friend to him all the sayd voyage, the wch made the sayd defendant through ignorence Condecend: But this pretended Botswaine would not leue the sayd defendant but provoked him by his fraudulent to goe one borde, & haled ye Ships boat for that end; and promised emediently to Follow himself vpon which this sayd defendant went one bord; expected the sd pretended Boatswaine would sodenly follow (at which time it is possible he might say he was willing to be a servant to new England for his 18s per moneth answerable to this sayd pretended boatswaines agreement; And then this sayd defendant waited severall days for this sayd pretended Boatswaine to Come one borde, but he not Coming of many dayes (for he Came not at all) he then inquired of the seamen for this sayd pretended Boatswaine: that Came not a bord; then the seamen one bord laughed at this sayd defendant, & tould him that he was catched by the kidnapper; But they tould him also that when the serchers Came one borde he might gaine a release, And wheras they Glose the matter to manifest the defendant Consent in receiveing Cloaths, his answer is, that he received none that he know off but that that might be to the first 18s vallue promised by the pretended Boatswaine; And further, that he received meat and drink one borde: his answer is that he must eate & drink or starue, & did not nor Could not goe ashore; And wheras they doe instance his goeing one shore at Gravesend, the defendants Answer positively is that he Could haue no opportunity to goe one shore but once, & that was with 3- or 4- to looke after him & that in such blind Corners, & uncoth places, yt he knew not which way to goe if he had binn at liberty; & besides the sayd defendant had some hopes of freedom by the serchers as the seamen tould him he might; & did in their presents refuse to give them his name & tould positiuely that he was not willing to goe the voyage; the wch is Cleerely proued And the sayd defendant doth positively affirme that he did even dislike and manifest his dislike in Coming the sayd voyage except it ware at the very first when he waited for the pretended boatswaine to Come one borde; but when the defendant did vnderstand that he was deluded spirited: or ketcht by the kidnaper: or manstealer: he was ever after vtterly unwilling; And wheras they doe say in their resons, that the defendants evidences are negatives; our answer is that we suppose they give that as a reason, becase they haue noe better reason; but true reason may inliten them that the defendants evidences may be as positive as the plantives

    And for thier third particuler wher as they instance the testimony of the Clark of the passinges to verifie the defendents willingness the defendant doth disowne that ever knew him or see him, And therfore much less to manifest his Concent to proceed one the voyage before him; but the defendant therin shall say little, but he beleue that the honored Court of assistance will not over redily give Credit to the returne of that sd offesser (if any such retume):

    And wheras mr Sprague charged about 3li expended about the sayd Defendant, It is supposed, that is irrationall for generalls to proue the particullers but particulers ought to proue the generall, but only mr Sprague himself did party reconsile the busineses for that he did possitively affirme that he payd 40s to the kidnaper for send the sayd man abord this also is Cleerly proued: therfor ther is noe need to speake of the kidnapers honesty: least we should Call light Darkness or dark[n]ess light; & it is doubtfull ther might be a Confederation in it And wheras they affirm that ther was tenn pounds offered in behalf of the defendant, we answer that if it should be true, that argueth not that ther is one penny Due, but men may bye peace at a deere rate, but non can say that ever Collings the defendant ever offered tenn pence; For it is supposed that for a fellow to be trapp and surcumvented by fraude & sent one borde & much meanes used to gitt one shore; not only at Graues end; but by the serchers, And also at tarbay ther stripping off all his Cloase for that end to goe one shore as is Cleerly proved, & yett to be brought away & to be brought as a Captive; In such a Case It is apprended that noe Charge ought to be layd upon such a person; & therfor we doubt not but the sayd three Courts did rigteously Cast the plantive and therfor we hope the honered Court of will Confirme their sayd judgments vnto whose determinations we humbly submit Dated March: 4th 1671.

    Depositions of three seamen on the Arabella support Collins’ statements (S. F. 1081.5, 6). Richard Sprague, master of the Arabella, deposed that he had disbursed 3l 7s for Robert Collins, who “was kept on board with meat drink & lodgen in the ship . . . five weeks before the ship sayled from Gravesend” (S. F. 1081.7). William Hearsy deposed (S. F. 1081.9):

    The deposition of Wm Hearsy aged about 21 years. This deponent witnesseth that the serchers coming abord the ship of which mr Sprage was Comander at Graues End to take notice of the Names of the passengers that then the said Robert Collings did then declare himselfe to the Said serchers that he would not goe in that said Shipp to New England to be a Servant to Mr Sprague or to be disposed of, then hee ye Said Mr Spreag tould him the Said Collins that he would strip him naked & turne him ashore & he the Said Collins did then expresse him selfe willing to goe ashore though stript but the said Master then would not suffer him, and when the Said Shipp came to Tar-bay he the said Collins would haue gon ashore there, vpon the manifestations thereof he the said Spreag made him strip himselfe naked, & when his cloaths was ofe he the said mr Spreag would not suffer him to goe on shore, notwithstanding all the seamen tould the said Collins with the passengers that if they were not willing to goe the said voyage when they came to Graues End they might be cleered & further this deponent sayth not

    Sworne in Court this 3 of 9br 1671 as Attests FreeGrace Bendall Cler.

    Having failed to recover Collins’ service, Sprague sued him for his passage money at the next session of the court. See p. 43, below.]

    Wiswall v. Hambleton

    Elder John Wiswall & Lt Richard Cooke guardians to Hannah Hanniford plantiffs against William Hambleton Defendt according to Attachmt Dat ye 25th of Octobr 1671 This case was by desire of plt & defendt wth leaue of ye Court continued till next Court

    Cooke v. Price

    Leut Richard Cooke plt against the goods debts or Estate that was formerly belonging vnto Mr Thomas Broughton & this case was also continued (after seuerall debates about its proceeding) vntill the next Court wth the Auditts returne.

    [See Cooke v. Broughton, session of 30 January 1671/72, pp. 65–78.]

    Whitcomb v. Burnham

    James Whitcomb plt against Thomas Burnam of Barbados defendt in an Action of the case for not passing or giuing bills of Exchange for the paying of fiuety & fiue pounds in London according to his Ingagemt as per a Letter of Creditt vnder the hand of said Burnham & James Coats bearing date the 13th of Octo 1670 & also a receipt of Benjamin Cotman relating therevnto bearing Date the Second day of December 1670 & for all Damage susteyned for want thereof with other due damages according to Attachmt Dat the 3d of 9br 1671 This Acion was by agreemt of ye plt & William Goose (Master of ye Katch Susanna whereof three Eight parts were attached as ye estate of ye Defendt) & Leaue from the Court now tryed & . . . the Jurie . . . found for the plantiffe sixty eight pounds fiueteene shillings in siluer & costs of Court forty fowre shillings & tenn pence.

    Bucknell acknowld a Judgmt

    Samuell Bucknell of Boston Cooper appeared in Court & acknowledged a Judgment against himselfe & Estate of Eleuen pounds twelue Shillings in English goods according to bill To Thomas Wiborne assigne of John Brian of Cittuate

    Execucion Issued forth ye 10th of 9br 1671.

    Bartho v. Turill

    William Bartholameu Attourney to Major Nehemiah Bourne plt agst Dan: Turill defendt according to Attachmt Dat ye 26th of Octobr 1671 [9] the plantiff not producing any procuracion or power from sd major Bourne was declared nonsuited.

    Administration to ye Revd Jno Allens Estate

    Power of Administration to the Estate late mr John Allens pastor of the Church of Christ at Dedham & of Mrs Katharine Allen his late wife both deceased is granted to Major Eliazer Lusher Mr Joseph Dudley & Samuell Hunting who are Ordered to dispose of the said Estates according to the Last will of the said Mr Allen & the Order giuen by the said Mrs Allen after the death of Mr Allen aforesaid soe far as the said order agree wth Mr Allens will which is proued in Court

    Eliza Smith Presented

    Elizabeth Smith presented for selling strong liquors without Licence the Court orders that she put in bond of good behauior according to Law or bee comitted to prison.

    Ri: Burnum Presented

    Richard Barnum presented for disorders in his howse & reflectiue speeches to the constable that made inquiry about it, ye said Barnum appeared & owned & acknowledged his Euill & presented a humble peticion to the Court all which beeing considered the Court Sentancd him to be Admonisd & pay fees of Court.

    Peter Egertonn & His Wiues Presentmt

    Peter Egerton & Clemence his wife presented for comitting Fornication before Marriage they appeared & acknowledged their Euill in a humble peticion. The Court Sentencd them to pay fiue pounds in Money fine to the County & fees of Court standing comitted till the Sentence be performd.

    Jno Chandlr Presented

    John Chandler of Roxbury presented for selling beere & Cidar (vpon publique fame) without Licence espetially vpon & about ye Last Court Day of Elextion & the Last Generall Trayning dayes at Boston the presentment not beeing fully proud the Court sentencd him to be Admonishd & pay fees of Court.

    Brantry Presented

    Brantry Towne beeing presented for insufitiency of the Bridge ouer Manaticott Riuer Deacon Bass appeared for the Towne & declared publiquely in Court that it was mended.

    Ri: & Martha Hall Presented

    Richard Hall & Martha his wife presented for fornicacion. The Court was informed they were gon to hauarell & Ordered a spetiall warrt to be Issued out for their appearance at the next Court.

    Christopher & Martha Wheaton Presented

    Christopher Wheaton & Martha his wife presented for fornicacion. The Court beeing Informd that the man was at sea respited his presentment till the next Court.

    Mary Huchins Sentenced

    Mary Huchins complained of for disorderly cariages in her howse The Court Orders that she put in suerties for her good behauior.

    Paul Hall Presented

    Paul Hall presented for liueing from his wife who is in England, hee appeared in Court & declared that hee was informd that his wife is dead the Court Ordered him to repaire to the Last place of her aboade or bring Certificate that she is dead & pay fees of Court

    Jeffery Richardson bound to good behauior

    Jeffery Richardson bound ouer to this Court on suspicion of breaking open the warehouse of John Pincheon Jur wch not beeing proud but only beeing a night walker the Court Sentencd him to be bound to the good behauior & pay fees of Court & [10] accordingly the said Jeffery Richardson in tenn pounds of prinsipall & John Cowell & William Read in fiue pounds apiece as suerties acknowledged themselues bound to the tresurer of the County of Suffolke on condicion that the said Jeffery Richardson shall bee of good behauior & appeare at the next Court of this County.

    Wm Read bound to good behauior

    William Read Junr bound ouer to this Court for Suspicion of breaking open Jno Pincheon Junr his warehowse the Court not finding suffitient Euidence against him yet beeing Jellouse of him by reason of his night walking & seuerall other suspitiose carriages the Court sentancd him to be bound to the good behauior & accordingly the said william Read in tenn pounds as prinsipall & William Read senr in fiue pounds & John Cowell in fiue pounds acknowledged themselues joyntly & seuerally bound to the tresurer of the County of Suffolke on condicion that the abouesaid William Read shall be of good behauior & appeare at the next Court of this County.

    Hanna Stewards Senta

    Hannah Steward convicted for stealing seuerall goods from Mrs Sarah Pickering her Mistris she confest the fact The Court sentancd her to pay threefold according to Law the goods to be returnd & be part thereof, & pay fees of Court & prison standing comitted till the sentance be performd.

    Nestfield whipt

    Joseph Nestfeild marriner convicted for violently offering abuse to Abigaile Johnson in a Laciuiose manner the Court findeing itt fully proud sentancd him to be whipt with thirty-nine stripes seuerely laid on payeing fees of Court & prison Standing comitted till the sentance be performd.

    [Philip Harris]

    Phillip Harris marriner convicted for stealing forty nine shillings & six pence from Mathew Gross out of his briches pocketts on board his Lighter for wch he fled & by vertue of a fiue & cry overtooke & returnt the Court sentancd him ye sd Renew (sic) to pay threefold according to Law, wth fees of Court & prizon standing comitted till the Sentance be performd.

    Renew senta

    Peter Renew convicted for stealing money as by Euidence appears the Court sentanct him to pay threefold according to Law & fees of Court & prizon standing comitted till the sentance be performd.

    Ordr about Phil: Edwards Estate

    Vpon the request of William Holliway Attornney to Abiah Edwards the right heir to ye Estate of Phillip Edwards late of Dorchester, deceased, the Court orders William Trescott (who Administred on aforesaid Estate) deliuer it up to the abouesaid Holloway, he the said Holloway giueing security to this Court for the vallue that it may be to the vse of the right heir abouesd.

    [Mary Wilmore]

    Mary Wilmore was by Order of this Court dischargd from Prison [11]

    Order about Chandler

    The Court orders that the Marshall instate Samuell Chandler (who married the late widdow Wormall) into the thirds of the Estate sued for according to the returne of the Comitte (that was appoynted to view the howses & ground) bearing date ye 4th of ye 12 mo 1670.

    Ordr about a Comitte for Mrs Lorin

    Upon the Peticion of Mrs Lorin of Hull & her sonns to this Court for the setling of the Estate of her late husband the Court desires & appoynts Jno Leuerett esqr Dept Gour Wm Stoughton esqr & Capt Wm Dauis to be a comitte to repair thither & Examine all matters relating to the Diuicion of abouesaid estate & call all persons before them conserned & endeauor a settlement thereof making returne heereof to the next County Court & the Dept Gour to Appoynt tyme & place & the Clerke to furnishe them with all papers that are vpon Record relating to said Estate.

    Casy dischargd

    John Casy Taylor was by order of this Court dischargd from his Administracion on ye Estate of Doctr Ralph Howser late of Jamaica Deceased.

    Reasons shoos returnd

    The Court Orders that Samuell Reason have his shoos returnd that was taken from him by Obadiah Emins & ye rest of the sealers of Leather in Boston

    Tuder comitted

    Upon complaint made against John Tuder of seuerall incoradgeing speeches he gaue to ye persons in Charlestowne Ferry boat by wch he indeauored to forward ye Escape of one Wheeler who violently (with sword Drawne & pistoll cockt) ran from ye Constable the Court sentancd him ye sd Tuder to be comitted to prizon till he finde bonds for his good behauior.

    Hill sentancd

    Thomas Hill convicted for abuseing Constable Brading who vpon notice of disorder at a publique howse repayred thither to the cognisance of itt who carrid sd hill before the Governr where he also behaued himselfe rudely the Court Sentancd him to be whipt with tenn stripes or pay fiue pounds fine in Money to ye County paying fees of Court & prison standing comitted till the senta be performd.

    Pratt, pardond 40s

    Vpon the humble Peticion of Tymothy Pratt the Court remitts him forty shillings of his late fine.

    The Court Adjourd till ye 9th of 9m

    The Court mett according to Adjournmt ye 9th of 9mo 1671.


    • RI: Bellingham esqr Gour
    • Edw: Tyng

    • Jno Leuerett esqr Dept Gour
    • Wm: Stoughton

    The Court sees meete to continue John Jacob of Hingham to keepe a howse of publique Entertaynemt vntill Aprill Court next he giueing security according to Law & not to entertayne ye young people of the Towne.

    Administracion to Deerings estate

    Administracion to the Estate of Samuell Deering late of Brantry deceased is granted to Mary Deering his relict shee bringing in an Inventory of said Estate & giue Security to Administer according to Law.

    Brantry constables sworne

    Martin Sanders & Caleb Hubbard beeing chosen Constables for Brantry were sworne in Court

    Jno Wiswall Junr senta

    John Wiswall Junr complained of for forwarding the Escape of Capt wheeler he appeared in Court where shewd a contemptuouse cariage & ground of suspicion of ye fact abouesd the Court sentancd him to be bound to good behauior Standing comitted [12] vntill the Sentance be performd & accordingly the said John Wiswall Junr in forty pounds as prinsipall & John Woodmancy & Nathaniell Dauenport as suerties in twenty pounds apeice acknowledged themselues bound to the tresurer of the County of Suffolke on condicion that the said Wiswall shall bee of good behauior & appeare at the next Court of this County.

    Hanna Hull dismisd of Administracion

    The Court Dismisseth the Widdow Hannah Hull from ye Administracion granted her upon the Estate of her Late Husband Thomas Hull of Boston Cooper she haueing compounded with the Creditors thereof

    The Court Adjourned to the 23th Instant

    The Court met according to Adjournmt ye 23th of 9mo 1671.


    • Ri: Bellingham esqr Gour
    • Major Eli: Lusher

    • Jno Leuerett esqr Dp Gour
    • Edward Tyng
    • Wm Stoughton

    Administracion to the estate of John Addams Late of London, deceased is granted to Aphra his relict she bringing in an Inventory of said estate & giues security to Administer according to Law.

    A warrt for Capt Price

    The Court Orders that a warrt be Issued out by the Clerke of this Court to Capt Walter Price of Salem to sumon him to the next Court of this County to Answere the complaint of Lt Richard Cooke according to Attachmt

    [Copies of writ and return are in S. F. 1068.1. See case of Cooke v. Broughton, in session of 30 January 1671 /72, below, p. 65.]

    Webb sentancd

    Christopher Webb beeing convicted that he hath beene a disturber of the peace of the Church of Brantry seuerall years Last past & by his acting an abettor of the Inhabitants in Invading the rights & priuiledges of the Church contrary to Law the Court sentances him to pay fiue pounds fine to the County & to stand henceforward disfranchised during the pleasure of this Court & to be bound to his good behauior in fiuety pounds himselfe & twenty fiue pounds apeice two suerties & pay fees of Court standing comitted till the sentance be performd & accordingly Christopher Web as prinsipall in fiuety pounds & William Needeham & Stephen Paine as suerties in twenty fiue pounds apeice acknowledged themselues joyntly & seuerally bound to the Tresurer of the County of Suffolk on condicion that Christopher Webb shall bee of good behauior & appeare at the next Court of this County.

    Mr Fisks ordr to preach at Brantry

    The Court haueing taken into consideracion the many means yt haue beene vsed with the Church of Brantry & hitherto nothing done to efect as to the obtayning the Ordinances of Christ amongst them, The Court Orders & desiries Mr Moses Fiske to improue his Labours in preaching the word at Brantry vntill the Church there agree & obtayne suply for the worke of the Ministry or this Court take further Order.

    Norden Licencd

    Vpon Certificate from the Selectmen of Boston Licence is granted to Samuell Norden to sell Beere & keepe a howse of publique entertaynement till aprill Court next & said Samuell Norden in tenn pounds as prinsipall & Edmond Jaxson & William Smith as suerties in fiue pounds apeice acknowledged themselues bound to the tresurer of the County of Suffolke on condicion that the said Samuell Norden shall observe the Law title Inkeepers with its Addicions. [13]

    [The title “In-keepers,” in fifteen articles with four additions, covers seven pages (79–85) in The General Laws and Liberties of 1672. One addition, in 1664, directed toward “the great increase of prophaness . . . especially of the younger sort” imposed a fine of 5s for “singing rudely or making a noise to the disturbance of the Family, or any other Guests in any place of Publick Entertainment.” The latest addition, of 1670, required selectmen to warn innkeepers against entertaining noted drunkards and tipplers, under penalty of 20s.]

    Ordr about Faulkner & Huchins

    The Court orders that if Dauid Faulkner & Mary Huchins come not to the Clerke of this Court (to giue in their bonds for the good behavior) when sent for that vpon such default they shall be sent to prizon.

    Webs fine respited

    Vpon the humble mocion of Christoper Webb to this Court ye Court was pleased to respit his Fine till next Court.

    Ordr about Deacons estate in Arthur Masons hands & ye Orphant

    Vpon the humble peticion of Hope Allen & John Saffin Attourneys to & for William Shute & Rachell his wife the Late relict of Joseph Deacons now resident in Jamaica relating to some Estate & an Orphant named Mary Burroughs that said Deacons left in ye hands & to the Care of Arthur Mason at his last departure from hence to Jamaica before he dyed, both parties beeing heard who left themselues to the Courts determinacion who heard the Ecception to abouesaid Masons acct together with his reply, read & spoken to & haueing Examind the will & the Orphant before ym

    The Court appoynts Arthur Mason to be guardian to sd Orphant Mary Burroughs Daughter in Law to the abouesaid Joseph Deacons who left her in trust with him as aboue said vntill shee come to Age to choose for herselfe & that this Court take further Order, & for that there is an Estate of said Deacons in Arthur Masons hands, hee the said Mason is Ordered to giue security to this Court of six hundred pounds to bring up the Child & to pay the sume of three hundred pound in money to her at age or Day of Marriage which shall first happen according to will & in case she Dye before that tyme the said three hundred pounds are to be deliuered to Rachell the relict of said Deacons or her Order & what now there is more of the Estate of said Deacons in the hands of said Mason then the three hundred pounds abouesaid hee is to deliuer it to William Shute that Married the relict of said Deacons or his order.

    Oxman acknowledgeth a Judgmt to Cp Curwin

    William Oxman appeared before Richard Bellingham esqr Gour & Edward Tyng esqr the 8th of January 1671 & acknowledged a Judgment against himselfe & Estate to Capt George Curwin of Salem for fiuety two pounds eighteene shillings & one penny in good marchantable Dry Fish & refuge fish & oyle at price currant according to bill Dated the 1st of January 1671 this was thus acknowledged as abouesaid as Attests

    Freegrace Bendall Cler.

    Execucion Issued ye 2 of ye 1st mo 1671/72

    At the Session of ye County Court aforesd

    Vpon due proclamacion made the persons heereafter Named were freed from their bonds of good Behauior, vizt James Steward of Weymouth, Joshua Nash, John Vering, George Burrill, Widdow Alice Thomas, William Evans, Rebecca Thomas

    The Returne of the Committee about setling John Kingsbury’s Estate allowed by the Court is lodged in the file of October Actions in ye yeare 1671. [14]