Grand jury the same with the formr Court.
Jury of Tryalls Sworne.
[Wharton v. Hudson et al]
Richard Wharton agent to Robert Bendish & Compa plt against Capta William Hudson, Thomas Joy & Robert Owen Defendts according to Attachment vpon the acknowledgmt of judgment the plt with drew his Accion.
[Wharton v. Hollingsworth]
Richard Wharton, plt agst Willm Hollingsworth Defendt in an Accion of the case for witholding from him ye Summe of Fifteen pounds thirteen Shillings & two pence or thereabouts in mony, being the ballance of theire Accotswith due dammages according to Attachmt Dat. this 10th of 8br 1672. . . . The jury . . . finde for the plt Fifteen pounds nine Shillings & five pence dammages & costs of Court being 20 shl
Execucion issued Aprill: 22d 1674 for 16li 9s 5d
Vsher conta Timberlack
John Vsher, attourny of Willm Coddington plt agst Willm Timberlack Defendt in an Accion of the case for non paiment of Eighty eight pounds in mony due by Agreemt made with the saide Coddington at Roade jsland bearing date the twentieth day of March, 1671/72, & all other due dammages according to Attachmt Dat. October 1, 1672. . . . The Jury . . . finde for the plt Sixty eight pounds dammage mony & costs of Court; being 22 shl 6d
Execucion issued Novr 6:1672 for 69li 2s 6d mo
Goulding conta Down
Peter Goulding attourny of John Figg plt agst Thomas Down & Susanna his wife, Executrix to the last will & Testamt of Peter Hubbard deceased, Defendts according to Attachmt The plt withdrew his Accion, costs granted the Defendt 41 shl 10d
Clarke conta Weeden
John Clarke, plt agst Joseph Weeden Defendt according to Attachmt Dat. Augo 7th 1672. The pit vpon non appearance was non Suited.
 Smith conta Carrington
Matthias Smith, plaint. contra Edward Carrington Defendt in an Accion of the case for not Learning & instructing him fully in the trade of a Turner according as by indenture hee is bound, but Employing him in other Servile work; whereby the saide Mathias is damnified for want of being perfected in the Trade of a Turner to the dammage of twenty pounds or thereabout & other due dammages according to Attachmt Dated 17th 8: 1672. . . . The jury . . . founde for the Defendt costs of Court being 19 shl 2d
Blighe conta Seene
Thomas Blighe, plaint. conta John Keene admr to the Estate of William Oates deceased Defendt according to Attachmt Dated Septembr 30th 1672 in failor of process the plaint. was Non Suited.
Stoddard &a conta Rock
Anthony Stoddard, guardian to Thomas Robbinson Wm Bartholmew guardian to James Robbinson & Deacon Wm Parcks guardian to Joseph Robbinson plaints. conta Joseph Rock, admr to the Estate of Mr John & Mrs Martha Coggan, Executrix to Mr John Coggan Defendt. This Accion was continued till the next Court by consent of parties.
[See above, p. 109, and below, pp. 200, 217, 241–1
James Whetcomb, plaint. conta Capta William Goose Defendt in an accion of the case for withholding the Summe of one hundred & forty pounds current mony of New England due by bond under his hand and seale bearing date Janur 9th 1671. with other due dammages according to Attachmt Dat. Octobr 24th 1672. . . . The Jury . . . found for the plaint. one hundred & forty pounds N. England mony due by bond & Costs of Court, being 33 shl 4d
Execucion issued xbr 19th 1672 for £141.13:4: mony.
French conta Ting
Philip French Attourny of Sammuell & Benjamin Sute Plaint conta Jonathan Ting Defendt according to Attachmt Dat. 19th 8br 1672. The Plaintwithdrew his Accion.
Phillip French, Attourny of Thomas Firman Plaint conta Jonathan Ting Defendt according to Attachmt Dat. 8br 29th 1672. The plaint withdrew his Accion.
Crowne conta Sprague
Colonll William Crowne Plaint conta Jonathan Sprague Defendt in an accion of the case for his illegall taking & riding his horse without leaue from the saide Collonell sometime in the last august  & soe wronging the saide horse, whils’t hee was on the horseback that hee received a great & dangerous wound with a Syth never like to bee thoroughly recovered, whereby the saide Coll: is damnified to the vallue of five pounds & for which offence the law gives treble dammage & other due dammages according to Attachmt Dat. 7: 8: 1672 . . . the jury . . . founde for the Defendt Costs of Court, the Magistrates sent the jury out againe & in the interim the plaintiffe withdrew his Accion the parties agreeing severally to beare theire owne charges & the writings to remaine on file.
More conta Jones
Thomas More, plaintiffe against William Jones Defendt in an Accion of the case for non paiment of five hundred twenty & three peices of eight & three quarters in Bilboa due for freight of five hundred twenty three quentalls three quarters of Fish as per bill of Loading appeares & due dammages according to Attachmt Dated October 22th 1672 . . . the jury brought in theire Verdict. The saide More having owned in Court the paiment of freight in full vpon gold Acct in Bilboa wee finde for the plaintiffe as due vpon plate Accot forty nine peeces of eight at eight rialls per peece, six rialls & four pence & costs of Court. William Jones appealed to the next Court of Assistants and the said Jones as principle in twenty four pounds & Capta Thomas Savage & mr Samuell Walker as Sureties in twelve pounds apeice acknowledged themselves . . . bound to . . . prosecute his appeale . . .
[Writ, return, and bond are in S. F. 1172.1. Bill of lading (S. F. 1172.2) follows:
Shipped by the grace of God in good order & well conditioned by William Jones in & vpon the good Ship cald the Supply of Boston whereof is master under God for this present Voiadge Thomas More & now rideing at ankor in the roade of Boston & by God’s grace bound for Bilbo to say five hundred twenty three quentalls & three quarters of Merchantable Fish, it being for the accoumpt of William Jones & company, being marked & Numbred as in the Margent & are to bee delivered in the like good order & well conditioned at the aforesaide port of Bilboa (the danger of the Seas onely excepted) unto Mr William Jones or in his absence unto Mr Richard Acklen or to theire assignes, hee or they paying freight for the said goods, Eight rialls plate per quent. to bee paide in peeces of Eight with primage652 & avarage accustomed. In witness thereof the master or Purser of the saide Ship hath affirmed to three bills of Lading all of this tenour & date, the one of which three bills being accomplished the other two to stand voide And soe God send the good Ship to her desired port in safety. Amen. Dated in Boston ye 2 August: 1672
The quantity & quality not knowne
Endorsed. Received the 13th October 1670. . . .
Mr Thomas More owned in Court ye 30th 8br 1672 that hee had received his full freight in consideracion of the within mencioned bill, onely received peices of Eight at nine Rialls whereas hee should have received them at Eight
As Attests Isaac Addington
Richard Way, attorney for Thomas Moore, entered the following “Replication to Mr Wm Jones his Reasons of Appeal” (S. F. 1172.3):
Secondly, whereas ye Plaint argues yt it was in his Liberty to pay in perue pes wch he prsums to affirm Currtt money of Spain at 8 Rialls plate pr peice, but had he don the world wou’d haue seen a designed peice of Fraudulence, For as much as yt is ye most deceiptfull Coyn in being; And as mr Jones Urgeth ye paymt of Choice waity money, to wch ye defendtts answer is, that what money was by him Reced, was but Barely According to obligation at 8 Rialls ye peice of Eight.
Apparently the appeal was not allowed.]
Waldren conta Smith
William Waldren admr of or to the Estate of Oliver Duncomb deceased plaintiffe against Christopher Smith Defendt in an accion of Reveiw of a judgment granted the saide Smith at a County Court held at Boston on the 30th july last, on a case there tryed & all other due dammages according to Attachmt Dat: August: 2: 1672 . . . the jury . . . founde for the Defendt costs of Court. 
[See next case.]
Waldren conta Smith
William Waldren plaint. contra Xtopher Smith Defendt in an Accion of Reveiw according to Attachment Dat. Augo 2: 1672 . . . The jury . . . founde for the Defendt costs of Court.
[See above, p. 135, and below, pp. 163–4. Writs and return for this case are in S. F. 1194, 1–8.]
Calley conta Warren
Joseph Calley, plaint. conta Humphrey Warren Defendt in an Accion of the case vpon Accot to the Vallue of Sixty six pounds or thereabouts & due dammages according to Attachment Dat. Octobr 7th: 1672. . . . The Jury . . . founde for the Defendt Costs of Court.
Pratt conta Lorings
Timothy Pratt, Attourny of Josiah Cooper admr to the Estate of Anthony Cooper & Francis his wife deceased plaint. conta Thomas & John Loring, admrs to the Estate of Thomas Loring deceased Defendts according to Attachmt Dat. Octobr 1672. The Accion being called & partly heard the plaintiffe withdrew his Accion.
Spencer conta Thomas
Roger Spencer plaint. conta Alice Thomas Defendt according to Attachmt Dat: Octob. 26th 1672. The plaint in failor of process was Non Suited.
John Jacob, plaint. conta Thomas Joy Defendt according to Attachmt Dat. Octobr 23th 1672. The plaint. withdrew his Accion.
Keene conta Blighe
John Keene, plaint. conta Thomas Blighe Defendt in an Accion of the case for that the saide Thomas Blighe doth deteine from the saide Keene & Hannah his wife a Negroe boy by name James of the saide Keen’s & Hanna his wife or to them belonging as a gift or Legacy given to the saide Keen’s wife by William Oates deceased, wth other due dammages according to Attachmt Dat: 22: 8: 1672. . . . The Jury . . . founde for the plaint. the Negroe boy & costs of Court or that the Defendt pay the plaint. thirty pounds in Mony & costs of Court 28s 4d
Execucion issued 28th Novr 1672
Calley attourny of Thomas conta Spencer
Joseph Calley attourny of Alice Thomas plaint. conta Roger Spencer Defendt according to Attachmt Dat: Octobr 1: 1672. The plaint. in failor of process was non Suited.
Hews conta Loue
Joshua Hews junior plt conta Richard Love Defendt according to Attachmt Dat: Octobr 10th 1672. The plaint. withdrew his accion. 
Woode conta Chantrell
Alexander Wood, plaint. conta John Chantrell Defendt in an Accion of the case for overrunning & sinking of a Fishing Shallop, being at an ankor neere Cape Cod whereby the plaintiffe is damnified to the Vallue of four score pounds or thereabouts in mony & due dammages according to Attachmt Dated Octobr 17th 1672. . . . The Jury . . . founde for the plaint. forty two pounds thirteen Shillings & ten pence in mony dammage & costs of Court, the Defendant appealed to the next Court of Assistants: and the saide John Chantrle as principall in Eighty pounds & James Whetcomb & Nathaniell Davenport as Sureties in forty pounds apeice acknowledged themselvs bound . . . that the saide Chantrell shall prosecute his Appeale from the judgment of this Court at the next Court of Assistants to Effect.
[One September night in 1672 the fishing shallop Hopewell, Alexander Wood master, was lying at anchor off Cape Cod. The men were busy on deck splitting and salting mackerel. A larger vessel bore down upon them suddenly, and ran them under water. The shallop was lost, with two lives and all the gear. The survivors were picked up by the vessel which had run them down, the ketch True Love, John Chantrell master, bound from Barbados to Boston. Captain Chantrell was haled before Deputy-Governor Leverett, whose original record of the examination (S. F. 1163.7) follows:
John Chanterling master of a ketch being brought before me vpon 16.7br 1672 & Complaind of for Runing aboard a shallop rideing of at Cape Cod & ran the boate downe by reason wherof the boate & fish weare lost & twoe men viz ware drowned & the boats master in Great hazard; the master John Chantry owned the fact but sayth he ordered to looke out & had seven men vpon the decke & being in the evening & fresh wynd could neyther see nor heare until it was to late to prevent it for that he orderd ye helme alee as soone as he heard any noyse but Could not prevent runing on board so sayth his Company, though thre witneses testifye one of the Company viz sayd they had a boole of punch & so did not mynde it, that person denyeth that he sayde so if he did he forgate it; done about 12. 7br 1672.
John Chantry as principal in 500l James wholcome & John mellowes as suertyes in 250l apeice acknowleg themselves bownd to the treasurer of the Country that John Chantry & his ketches Company being seven men shal apeare at the Cort of asistants upon ajounemt to answer what shalbe aledged agt them for the same & abyde the order of the Cort done the 16. 7br 1672 before me John Leuerett dept. Gouernor
Criminal action was at once instituted before the Court of Assistants, which on October 8, 1672 (Records of the Courts of Assistants, iii. 224) sentenced the master and the members of his crew to an admonition,
refferring the partjes damified thereby to their legall advantages & that they pay the fees of Court.
As suggested by this Court, Wood entered a civil suit for damages against Chantrell in the County Court, presenting the following bill of damages (S. F. 1163.17):
A true Accot of the Vallue of the Shallop Hopewell of Boston lately ran under water being at ankor, in or towards the Evening by John Chanterly his Catch as followeth. Vizt
The Hull by itselfe
To a new Roade poyse: 4c0:7
To the maine Saile foresaile & spretsayle
To the Masts & three oares
To an ankor
To a pump & all her blocks
To a Compas, Lanthorn, jron pot. 2. watr Caske
To a Rudder & jron worke
To: 2 Bucket’s, Cann & platter’s
A true accot of the Fishing Craft cast away in the saide Shallop under the Command of Alexander Wood following & fish it being his own[e]
To two thirds of 18: barlls of Mackarell
To two thirds of two barrells of Fish
To leads, lines, and other materialls
To 2 butts .1. hhd .6. barrell’s
To his Cloathen wth shirts, bookes, box, bedding &c.
More to loss of time being deprived of the Boate in that time of the yeare when other Boats kild above thirty barrells afterwards; which hee hope to bee considered by the honord Court for his loss of time
Besides what is abouesaide the two men that are cast away with the Shallop are Debtors for Boat hire & other wages vpon theire generall; which if it should reflect vpon the said woode, it would come to £12: at leaste.
Sworne in Court the 30th: 8: 72. by Alexandr Wood that this is a just & true accot of his dammage susteined by loss of his boate. As attests Isaac Addington Cler.
The testimony of three fishermen (S. F. 1163.6):
. . . The same Evening that the Catch whereof John Chantrell is master ran down the Shallop of Alexandr Wood it was a Starr Light Evening & faire handsome weather the winde at southwest & wee these Deponants riding at ankor not far of this Boate, often looked out & saw a boate that rode about halfe a quarter of a mile from us very plainely & further say not.
Three others declared that they had met one of Chantrell’s crew ashore, who admitted that “they had not minded it” (the collision) “for they had got a Cup of punch before them” (S. F. 1163.6); but John Crocum, a passenger on the True Love, deposed (S.F. 1163.8) that he had been on deck
when this accident was & six men else . . . & there was noe punch stirring not three hours before in the Catch & that the Master gaue order to haue good looking out boath for the Boates & the Land & they did the best of theire Endeavor & looked out some of one side & some of the other . . .
S. F. 1163.10
Thomas Hatherly aged about 38 yeares of age or thereabout testifieth & saith that hee heard Alexandr Wood the master of the Shallop that was preserved, saide that hee could lay neither negligence nor carelesness to the Masters charge John Chantrells but the saide Wood saide hee did beleive that as soone as hee heard him call or see the Shallop hee did doe the vtmost of his Endeavor to Shun them, but being soe neere hee could not before hee run aboard the shallop & after this sad accident fell out the saide Wood said alsoe there was noe man Living that could take more care & paines to Save theire Lives then hee did & I heard the saide Wood say alsoe they might all haue saved theire lives if they would haue taken hold of the Ropes that was throwne unto them but they were afraide of theire Armes.
Taken vpon oath the 7th of the 8th mo 1672 before mee
Anthony Stoddard Commisr
True Coppie . . .
Daniel Turrell deposed to the same effect, October 8, 1672 (S. F. 1163.11). Wood’s bill of costs follows (S. F. 1163.16):
Alexandr Woode plaintiffe against John Chantrell Defendt his bill of Costs in the saide Accion
For the Attachmt & bond
for Serving the Attachmt
For three Coppies of Evidances from mr Rawson’s
for 3 witnesses from hull one day to each
for 2 witnesses from Marblehead 3 dayes to each
for one witness more 2 dayes
for 4 Summonses
for 3 witnesses more heere at Boston
for Entring the Accion
for my owne Attendance four dayes
for filing of papers
Allowed I. A.C Summe is
Chantrell’s “Reasons of Appeale” (S. F. 1163.4) were presented to the Court of Assistants, February 26, 1672–73, by James Whetcombe, his attorney. He objects to paying the entire damage, “being informed yt ’tis a Rule in Admiralty that where Losse happeneth not absolutely done by one particuler person every indeviduall man payeth his proportionable parte . . . . The Law Sayth that Dammage as this done shall be left to indifferent men appointed by the Judges, but this was not done.” The accident occurred “through the neglect of the Defendt in not Vseing wt meanes he might, haueing both fyre & candle” to give warning, “They seeing me by the bygnesse of my Vessell before I could see them.” And, finally, “Because the jury giveth the full Vallew of the Shallop & goods to the Defendt who sues neither as master nor Owner of sd Shallop So that Jno of Styles653 might as legally sue as Allexandr Wood according to the Attachmt.” Signed by James Whetcomb in behalf of John Chantrell. Received “Febry 26th 1672 about nine oclock in the morning.”
Alexander Wood answered (original signed, S. F. 1163.5), that he sued Chantrell the master because he had no one else to sue—also “ye Law Saith Page (97) yt ye prson offending shall pay ye Damage which Is ye Master, ye Law Doth not Say ye Master and Company.”
This reference was to the Lawes and Liberties of 1672, chapter on Maritime Affairs, sec. 13, which law is quoted correctly. The “indifferent” men to judge the damage was provided by the jury, continues Wood; the night was brightly starlit, and “they minded more a boale of punch then harkening to ye cry of persons yt lost there liues.”
It does not appear that the appeal was allowed.]
Peck conta Lawton
Thomas Peck, plaint. conta Henry Lawton Defendt in an Accion of the case for breach of Charter party bearing date 23. day of August 1670. & deteining his quarter part of the Catch therein Specified about thirteene months after the expiracion of the Charter to the greate dammage of the plaint. with other due dammages according to Attachmt Dat: Septembr 3. 1672. . . . The Jury . . . found for the plaint forty five pounds ten shillings in mony dammage & Costs of Court, being 48s 2d
Execucion issued Janr 29: 1672: for 47li 18s 2d
[See Peck v. Bonner, above, pp. 31–36, notes to Lawton & Bonner’s bond, below, pp. 176–177, and Lawton v. Peck, below, p. 293.]
Smith conta Waldren
Christopher Smith, plaint conta William Waldren Defendt in an accion of the case for non paiment of twenty eight pounds thirteen shillings & four pence half penny or thereabouts, or what shall justly appeare to be due to the saide Smith for one third part of the ballance of an accot which accot the saide Waldren sued for & the saide Smith took his oath to in Court: 31:5:1672 & due dammages according to Attachmt Dat. August: 23, 1672. . . . The Jury . . .  founde for the plaint on the ballance of accots twenty eight pounds six shillings & eight pence halfe penny being one third of the ballance, the saide plaint being accountable to the partners in fellowship theire parts of the goods in the plaint’s hand as is Specified in the accot vpon oath in the four last perticulers & costs of Court which was 22 shl
Execucion issued Nov. 30th 72 for £:29. 8:8:½.
[See next case.]
Smith conta Waldren
Christopher Smith, plaint. conta William Waldren admr to the Estate of Oliver Duncombe deceased Defendt in an Accion of the case for non paiment of twenty eight pounds thirteen shillings & four pence halfe penny or thereabouts or what shall justly appeare to bee due to the saide Smith for one third part of the ballonce of an account; which Account the saide Waldren Sued for & the saide Smith tooke his oath to in Court 31th day of fifth month 1672 & due dammages according to Attachmt Dat. ye 23th day of August. 1672. . . . The Jury . . . founde for the plaint. on the ballance of Accots twenty eight pounds six shillings & eight pence halfe penny being one third of the ballance, the saide plaint. being accountable to the partnrs in fellowship theire parts of the goods in the plaint’s hand as is specified in the accot vpon Oathe in the four last perticulers & Costs of Court which was 27shl 2d
Execucion issued Novr 30:1672 for £29:13: 9:½.
[See above, pp. 135, 158, 163, and below, pp. 186, 193, 202.]
Smith conta Kent
Thomas Smith, plaint. conta William Kent Defendt in an Accion of Reveiw of a judgment of nine pounds six Shillings & eight pence obteined by the saide Kent agst the saide Smith at a County Court held at Boston in july last past & due dammages according to Attachment Dat. October 24th 1672. . . . The Jury . . . founde for the Defendant costs of Court. The plaintiffe appealed from this judgement to the next Court of Assistants & the saide Tho: Smith as principle in Eighteen pounds & Mr Peter Lidgett & Mr Tho: Deane as Sureties in nine pounds apeice acknowledged themselves bound . . . that sd Tho: Smith shall prosecute his appeale. . . .
Tho Smith his reasons of Appeale from the judgement of the County Court held in Boston Octobr 29: 1672
Inpr The Plaintife did giue vp his intrest in the person of his seruant for the Consideration of eight pounds in mony paid to the Plaintife by Mr Wm Kent, & the said kent tooke her by his owne choyce & her Consent freely without any consideration of any other ingagements & in full performance of her former Indentures betwene her & her Said Master Smith, which is proued by Sarah Black-lock her testimony owned by Said Kent in Court 31: 8mo 1672 therefore the Plaintife humbly conceiues that the defendant had his full Bargaine
2ly The plaintife dos not refuse but is redy to doe anything legally required of him, but knows nothing on his part (tell better informed) to bee further done, as the now defendant proues by his acknowledgment to his seruants depossition
3: the present Defendant ownes the person, namely Sarah Blacklock to bee his servant in his first Attachment, but sayeth the said seruant was never maid ouer according to Law by the present Plaintife, which Law the Plaintife knoweth not for want of Direction, but that the person in Controversey put herselfe an Apprentice to the present Defendant is euidente; as witnes Mr William Kents acknowledgement in open Court the thirty first of octobr one thousand six hundred & seuenty two
Thomas Norman Attumey of and in the behalfe of Tho: Smith
It does not appear that the appeal was allowed or prosecuted.
For the order to Thomas Smith to deport Sarah Blacklock, see above, p. 149; for subsequent actions of that versatile wench, see below, pp. 186, 189, 237.]
Bonner conta Lawton
John Bonner, plaint. conta Henry Lawton Defendt in an accion of reveiw according to Attachmt Dat. 24th Octobr 1672. The plaint. withdrew his Accion. 
Bonner conta Lawton
John Bonner, plaint. contra Henry Lawton Defendt for wages according to Attachmt Dat. Septembr 21th 1672. The plaint. withdrew his Accion.
Lawton conta Bonner
Henry Lawton, plaint. conta John Bonner Defendt according to Attachmt Dat: Septembt 26th 1672. The plaint. withdrew his Accion.
John Bonner, plaint. contaa John Ireland Defendt according to Attachment. Dat. August: 3: 1672. The plaint. withdrew his Accion.
Bonner conta Lawton
John Bonner, plaint. contaa Henry Lawton Defendt for an accot According to Attachmt Dat. Septembr 3: 1672. The Plaint. withdrew his accion.
[A part of the series of Ketch Recovery cases; a consequence of Lawton v. Bonner, above, pp. 152–3. These actions were withdrawn in consequence of the agreement recorded below, pp. 176–7.]
Anderson conta. Cox
John Anderson, plaint. conta Robert Cox Defendt according to Attachmt Dat. Octobt 23th 1672. The plaint. on non appearance was Non Suited.
Snelling conta Chantrel
Sarah Snelling plaint. conta John Chantrel Defendt in an accion of the case for overrunning & sinking of the Boate in which the saide Snelling was; the saide Boate being at an anchor neere Cape Cod; whereby the saide Snelling not onely lost his life but alsoe his Fish & other Trade hee had aboard, whereby the saide Sarah Snelling (& her children) being but one handed wilbee forced to rely vpon the Towne for Maintenance & all due dammages according to Attachmt Dat. 24th 8: 1672. . . . The Jury . . . founde for the Defendant costs of Court.
[Cf. Wood v. Chantrell, above, pp. 159–163.]
Goulding conta Hauthorne
Peter Goulding Attourny of Zechariah Phillips assigne of William Phillips plaint. conta John Hauthorne Defendt according to Attachmt Dat. August 9th 1672. The plaint. in failor of process was non Suited.
Hudson conta Shepard
Nathaniell Hudson plaint. conta Andrew Shepard, Defendt. The plaint. vpon non appearance was Non Suited.
John Bonner, plaint conta Henry Ashton Defendt on a Reveiw according to Attachmt Dat. August 3d 1672. The plaint. withdrew his Accion. 
Bonner contra Ashton
John Bonner plaint conta Henry Ashton Defendt according to Attachmt Dat. Septembr 2:1672 The plaint. withdrew his accion.
[For the previous history of this case, see Ashton v. Bonner, pp. 141–2. These two actions for review were withdrawn in consequence of an arbitral agreement not here recorded, but the nature of which is indicated by the following arbitral award, dated January 20, 1672/73 (S. F. 1341.26):
Whereas per an Instrument from the County Court dated the 29th October 1672 was referred to us John Joyliffe Peter Lidget & Thomas Deane all such differences as was between John Bonner & Henry Ashton as is more fully expressed by saide Instrument of Court reference thereto being had may appeare: We having heard read & considered the whole difference between them, & also the tryall at Law in a case at a County Court held at Boston the 30th July last doe Award as followeth. Vizt That soe much as was recovered by saide Ashton at saide Court ag[s]t saide Bonner bee returned to saide Bonner being Seventy pounds damage & four pounds Seventeen shillings charges with serving the Execucion; Also wee Award sd Ashton to pay unto saide Bonner in mony thirteen pounds Sixteen shillings & four pence being the full ballance of the accoumpt between sd Ashton & Bonner, all to be returned & paide within ten dayes after the date hereof: Further wee Award that saide Ashton shall Satisfy mr John Williamson for a Wagoner which saide Bonner received & Ashton charrgeth him on accompt, for wee having considered saide Ashton for the same in this Award & allowed him for it thirty shillings: And Likewise wee Award that saide Ashton shall pay ten shillings for charges of the Arbitration spent where wee met & that saide Bonner & Ashton or his Security on his behalfe shall at the performance hereof giue Legall discharges each to other: And this wee giue as or Award for a full & finall determination & issue of all differences between them committed to us in the case. In testimony whereof wee haue hereunto put or hands & Seales the 20th day of Janury 1672
Owned in Court by the Defendt
John Joyliffe & a Seal
The first of August 1673
Peter Lidget & a Seal
as Attests F B C
Tho: Deane & a Seal
The award was not accepted by Bonner, who was sued by Ashton for non-performance of his bond, in July, 1673. See below, p. 292.]
Dinely conta Steenwick
Fathergon Dinely admr to the Estate of John Dinely late of Boston deceased plaint. against the goods Debts or estate of Cornelius Steenwick, in the hands of Capta William Davis, or wherever else it may bee founde, the saide Capta Davis being Attourny to the saide Steenwick Defendt in an Accon of Reveiw of a judgmt entred the last Court of Assistants in March last past, but the saide Accion was tried at the Court of Assistants in September last past; wherein saide Capta Davis was as Attourny to saide Cornelius Steenwick plaint. against the Estate of saide John Dinely deceased; which is greatly to the dammage of the plaint. & other due dammages according to Attachmt Dat. August 29th 1672. . . . The jury findes for the plaint. that the Defendant shall deliver up to the plaintiffe whatever was Levied by Execucion which was the Estate of John Dinely & now in the hands of Capta William Davis attourny to Cornelius Steenwick or to pay the plaintiffe two hundred pounds in Mony & Costs of Court. The Defendant appealed to the next Court of Assistants, & the saide Capta William Davis as principall in four hundred pounds & Mr Nicholas Page & John Vsher as Sureties in two hundred pounds apeice acknowledged themselves in open Court jointly & severally bound to . . . prosecute his appeale . . .
[Cornelis Steenwyck, the defendant, was the owner of Fordham Manor. New York, and rated the second wealthiest burgher of New Amsterdam. He was at this time a member of the Governor’s Council during the brief restoration of Dutch rule that came with the third Anglo-Dutch war, John Dinely was a Boston shipmaster who traded on his own account between Boston, Virginia, and the West Indies. He died in Virginia (S. F. 1290.22), or, according to another account, in Nevis, in 1669, owing Steenwyck a debt of 1696 guilders, 16 stivers. This case arose from an effort of Dinely’s brother and executor, Fathergon Dinely, to evade payment of the debt.
Some of the evidence, endorsed “3 Certificates from New York” (S. F. 1290.20), follows:
Theis may testify all whom it may concerne That Nicolas Bayard of this Citty did this day make oath before mee yt hee was witnes to a certaine Bill bearing date the 5/15 day of July 1663 made by John Dinely to mr Cornelius Stenwicke, Major of this Citty and that his name being by some accident blotted therein hee hath likewise certified the same on the Back Side vnder his hand Giuen vnder my hand at Fort James in New yorke this 10th day of August 1670
This is a true Coppie as Attests Freegrace Bendall Clr
Sir: I receiued yor Letter per mr Edsall I returne yw many thankes for yor kind lines to mee: Tobbacco falls short with mee this yeere by ye reason of my going to Barbadoes otherwise I would haue sent you some tobbacco this yeere, Sir I confess it is time yt it were paid But if please God to Spare mee my life I will come to New York the next October and pay all my Engagmts honestly For I haue got mee a vessell wch will bee very necessary for mee to performe what I now write vnto yw. Not else at prsent but my Service prsented to yw and yor Lady I rem yor Servt to Comand
Superscribed For his hond
Freind mr Cornell Stenwick
at New Yorke Merchant these prsent
. . . True Coppie as attests FreeGrace Bendall Cler
S. F. 1290.28
Samuell Edsall aged about Thirty Seaven yeeres maketh oath that being shewne a certaine obligation from John Dinely of Boston made to mr Cornelius Steenwick where unto is subscribed the name of John Dinely. hee this deponet vpon seurall occasions knew the hand writing of the said Dinely Exceeding well and Declareth that this was his hand. Moreouer being imployed by mr Stenwick vpon a voyage hee tooke into Virginia to Demand the debt of John Dinely and to offer him time of paymt after the Bond was Due as at one two or three paymt if hee could not Doe it at one or two Hee the Said Dinely did then acknowledge the debt to this depont& said, I am now bound to the Barbadoes and if mr Steerman shall arriue here before I goe I will Endeauor imediatly to send part of the debt And if it should please god hee should returne backe to Virginia from Barbadoes hee designes his next voyage to New yorke. where hee would comply with mr Stenwick for his Obligation in the whole but he neur returned backe This Deponent further Saith yt hee supposeth the said John Dinely Spake as hee thought & Did intend hee Expecting to receiue mony of mr Steerman who was his wiues father in lawe for her portion And further Saith not this depont
Sworne before mee in New york this 20th day of May 1671
Mathias Nicolls Secret
True Coppie . . . FreeGrace Bendall Cler.
S. F. 1290.29
Henry Puttifer Aged about thirty fiue years makes Oath yt John Dinely of Boston & the deponent went together in one vessell fiue seuerall tymes betwene Virginia & this place, that although he was not a witnesse to the Obligacion made by ye Said Dinely to Mr Cornelius Stenwick, nor did he see him Set his hand therevnto yet he Knew the handwriteing of Jno Dinely aforementioned very well & hauing Seene his hand to the Said Obligacion that is to Say his name Subscribed therevnto hee doth really beleiue it to be his owne hand writeing, That this deponent was with the Said John Dinely in this place from which they were bound together for Virginia & he doth verry well remember Seuerall particulars of the Goods which John Dinely receiued for yt which he entred into this Obligacion to mr Stenwick at that tyme & the deponent doth verrily beleiue that the Said Debt was never paid by him to mr Stenwick, or by his Order to anyone else vnto him for that the Said John Dinely neuer returned back from Virginia either to this place or New England for that he Sayled from thence to the West where he made some voyages vp & downe & there Dyed
Sworne before mee in New yorke this 20th Day of May 1671
Matthias Nicolls seer.
. . . True Coppie as Attests FreeGrace Bendall Cler
Captain William Davis, attorney for Steenwyck, sued Fathergon Dinely before the Suffolk County Court at the session of March-April, 1671. The record (S. F. 1290.9) follows:
At a County Court held at Boston 31. 1: mo 1671
Capta Wm Davis plt as Attourny to Cornelius Steenwick against goods, Debts or Estate formerly belonging to John Dinely decea[sed] now in the hands of Fathergon Dinely administrater to the said Estate Defendt in an action of Debt of Sixteene hundred [ninety] six gilders & sixteene Stivers due by bill & interest . . . the jury . . . found for the D[efendt] costs of Court.
A review was granted at the July session of the County Court in 1671 (S. F. 1290.6), and the judgment was reversed. Captain Davis promptly appealed to the Court of Assistants (S. F. 1290.13):
William Dauis his Reasons of Appeale from the judgmt of the Hond County Court in Boston.
1st Because yor Appellant suing vpon the bill of debt in Jan. last, hauing butt one Wittnes to proue itt, was Cast whearevpon suing on a review in July last, though new Euidence was produced, was Cast againe, and as I vnderstand, beecauss I produced a bond of the prsent Defts to pay such a summ as in satisfaction of John Dinleys debt ∴
2ly Becauss although such a bond was produced yett itt was butt in way of Euidenc; & the bond itt selfe butt a Security for paymt, for hee neuer tooke vp the Bill ∴
3ly Becauss hauinge bothe the principles bill, and his Bro. Bond, itt was in my liberty to sue Either & vpon recouery from the principles Estate the bond was [torn] in Courss. Beesides the principle hath an [torn]te to bee Found. the Surty hath non theirefore I Conceiue the Cass should haue gone for the plantife ∵
Wm Davis Attourney
to Cornelius Stenwyck
Receaued the thirtieth Day of Agust at six of the Clock in the afternoone as Attests FreeGrace Bendall Cler.
Whereas my Brother John Dinely of Boston deceased was before his death justly & truely indebted unto Mr Cornelius Steenwick of the Citty of New yorke Merchant in the full Summe of Sixteene hundred ninty six gilders & Sixteene Stivers, as alsoe Six hundred pounds of Tobacco more which the saide Cornelius Steenwick paide & disbursted for the saide John Dinely to one Ms Wessell & alsoe to one Mr Jaques Casseau of the same City Merchant in the full quantity of one Thousand Eight hundred fifty nine pounds of good Tobacco, which saide Debt the saide Cusseau hath assigned & transported over unto the saide Cornelius Steenwick as his one proper goods & Chatties; all which Debts should haue beene paide by the saide John Dinely in good sound Merchantable Leafe Tobacco free deliverance in New yorke in the yeare 1663 all which Summes at 4d per pound without interest amounts unto One hundred & thirty five pounds & fiue shillings Sterling.
Know all men therefore by these pursents that I Fathergon Dinely of Boston in New England my heires & Executors doe stand firmely bound unto the above saide Cornelius Steenwick his heires Executors administraters or assignes in the full Summe of two hundred & Seventy pounds Sterling to which paiment well & truely to bee made I doe binde mee my heires Executors & administrators firmely by theire pursents. In wittness whereof I haue hereunto Set my hand & Seale in New yorke this thirtieth day of June 1670.
The Condicion of the within written obligacion is such that whereas the within bound Fathergon Dinely hath at this pursent time a certaine Estate in his hands at his disposing of his saide Brother John Dinely deceased & alsoe is apparent heire & Executor to his saide Brother by due course of law, his saide brother dying without issue. Now if the saide Fathergon Dinely his heires, Executrs or assignes (after paying to Capta Lake the Summe of forty two pounds ten Shillings & unto Mr Gibson about Eight pounds more) doe well & truely pay or cause to bee paide unto the saide Cornelius Steenwick or his order the full Summe of one hundred thirty five pounds & five Shillings Silver pay or mony in the Citty of Boston in New England Provided there shall bee Effects be in his hands when they abouemencioned two Summes are paide or allowed none other to haue purferenc[e] or excepted then this pursent obligacion to bee voide & of none Effect, otherwise bee of full force & Vertue.
Fathergon Dinely & a Seale
Sigillat et Deliberat in pursentia Henry Newton John Sharpe Notar Public. Thomas Taylor
Memorand. it is Mutually agreed on & concluded by & between the parties above mentioned before the Signing & Sealing hereof that the saide forty two pounds to Capta Lake & Eight pounds to Mr Gibson are not to bee paide by the saide Dinely before the abovementioned Summe to Cornelius Steenwick unless the saide Dinely is thereunto constreined & compelled by due course of law & order of Court.
. . . True coppie . . .
The case reached the Court of Assistants on September 5, 1671. The material part of the record (S. F. 1290.7, printed in Records of Court of Assistants, iii. 208), follows:
The jury brought in theire Verdict. a Speciall Verdict. i. e. in case the great blots or blurrs on the bill in question being mostly in the place of the Testimonies Subscription will make it voide in law, notwithstanding a possitive witness to the bill affirming the Subscription of the Debtor & other Testimony affirming the owning the Debt then wee finde for the Defendant costs of Courts; But in case such blot as aforesaide will not nullify the saide bill in law then wee finde for the plaintiffe one hundred forty one pounds Eight Shillings in Country pay & costs of Courts. The Magestrates on perusall of this Verdict findes for the plaintiffe one hundred forty one pounds Eight Shillings in currant Country pay & costs of Courts four pounds thirteen Shillings & nine pence—This Verdict is to stand Entred from ye 5th March 167½. according to law.
That this is a True Coppie taken out of the Courts booke of Records Attests
Edw: Rawson Secret.
Isaac Addington Cler.”
In consequence of this decision in favor of Steenwyck, a writ of execution was issued against the Dinely estate in his brother Fathergon’s hands, and a lot 61 x 41½ x 115 x 100 feet “vpon the Street where the prison is” in Boston, together with a two-acre pasture, were apprised at 1051 in part satisfaction of the judgment (Records of Court of Assistants, iii. 209–11). This at length brings us to the action of review of Dinely v. Steenwyck recorded in the entry above. William Davis’s reasons of appeal from that verdict to the Court of Assistants (S. F. 1290.15) follow:
Wm Dauis, Attourney of Cornelius Stenwick his Reasons of Appealle from the Verdict of the Jury in Octobr 1672
first Becauss the accion Commenced against the pl. by the Defendt, is nott the same vpon wch the pl obtained a judgmt in sept 1671 att the Court of Assistants the demonstration hereof appeares
first The pl. sued the Estate, formerly belonging to Jno Dinely deceased in the hands of Fathergone Dinely, administrator to the said Estate, as per attachmt [ ] will appeare:
2ly By the Verdict of the Jury & judgmt of Court wch is against Fathergone Dinely, & nott against Jno Dinelys Estate Deceased, as the Defents attachmt Saith—3ly—Becauss the law title tryalls saith in Causes beetwene party & party, if the party against whom judgmt shall pass shall haue any new plea &c;656 wch law Supposeth itt must bee the same Case in wch the party was Caste muste bee Reuiewed, butt this Case is nott Such, for
First The Case tryed beefore the Courte of assistants, was nott produced, onely a few loose paprs; Therefore noe Reuiew of the Case wherin the pl obtained judgmt—2ly—No new Euidence was produced by the defendant, Either to null the Bill, or prooue the debt paid, wthout wch no reuiew, Could bee granted, any paprs whatsoeuer of another Importe, & pretended new Euidences Notwithstanding
3ly The Records of the Court of Assistants were nott produced vpon wch judgmt was giuen by them, wthoutt wch the Court Could nott Comp[ ]any plea or Euidence Called new—4 ly—By this meanes the Deft reflects greate injustice on this Hond Court, in granting a judgmt, vpon onely pra’tended grounds—5ly—by this means the Court & Jury were abused, & the Jury misled to an issue in their Verdict, as will Appeare on furthar plea.
These Reasons were received from Capta William Davis Febry: 26:1672
As Attests Isaac Addington Cler
Here there is a gap in the record. It would seem that, in view of Dinely’s subsequent actions, the Court of Assistants must have reversed the verdict of the County Court in its winter session of 1672–73, but no record can be found. Dinely’s next move was to sue Captain Davis (S. F. 1290.5):
To The Marshall of ye County of Suffolk or his Deputy
You are heereby required in his Maties Name to Attach the goods or Estate of Cornelius Fenwick in the hands of Capt William Dauis by Vertue of an Execution granted to the Said Capt Dauis as Attourney to the sd Fenwick & serued to vallue of one hundred & fiuety pounds to be responsall at the next County Court to be held at Boston then & there to Answere ye complaint of Fathergon Dinely Administrator to ye Estate of Jno Dinely Deceased in an Action of the Case for Illegal seizing aprizing & makeing Diuition of a howse & land, that the aforesaid John Dinely was neuer Legally possessed of nor diuition euer hauing bin made betwene ye aforesd John & Fathergon Dinely in the said Land but after the Decease of John Dinely Fathergon Dinely his Brother as Administrator to the Deceased his Estate was Legally possessed of ye sd howse & Land & hath fully Satisfied for them as may appeare by sd Fathergon his accoumpt giuen to & accepted by the County Court with all Due Damages & so make a tru Returne heereof vnder your hand Dated the Twenty third of Aprill 1673
By the Court Jonath. Negus
. . . True Coppy . . . Free Grace Bendall Cler
For a continuance of this case—Dinely v. Steenwyck—see below, p. 246. In the meantime Fathergon Dinely endeavored to get back a bit of his own by stealing hay from Captain Davis’ barn. See below, p. 234.]
Atherton conta Shepard
Jonathan Atherton, plaint. conta George Shepard Defendt according to Attachmt Dat. August: 16: 1672. The plaint. in failor of process was Non Suited & Hudson Leverett Tho: Norman & Peter Egerton appearing for George Shepard for whome they were Sureties & had 11.s Costs granted them.
Execucion issued Novr 29th 1672 for 11s
Joshua Atwater, plaint. conta Matthew Bridge Defendant in an Accion of Debt of seven & thirty pounds one Shilling & three pence in mony due by bill & due dammage & interest according to Attachmt Dat. Octobr 9th 1672. . . .  The jury . . . founde for the plaint. thirty seven pounds one Shilling three pence in Mony & costs of Court. being twenty eight shillings & two pence.
Execucion issued Augo: 10th: 1674 for £:38: 9: 5: mony.
Savage contra Hollingsworth
Capta Thomas Savage plaint. conta William Hollingsworth Defendt in an Accion of the case for witholding a Debt of fourteen pounds in Mony due by bill with due dammages according to Attachmt Dat. Octobr 11th 1672. . . . The Jury . . . founde for the plaintiffe, ten pounds Fourteen shillings & seven pence in Mony dammage & costs of court twenty seven shillings & nine pence.
Execucion issued Aprill: 22d: 1674. for £:12:1:9. mo
Atwater conta Searle
Joshua Atwater, plaint. conta Daniell Searle Esqr Defendt according to Attachmt Dat. July. 30th 1672. The plaint. in failor of process was nonsuited.
Atwater conta Searle
Joshua Atwater, plaint. conta Daniell Searle Esqr Defendt according to Attachmt Dat. July. 30th 1672. The plaint in failor of process was nonsuited.
Stebbins conta Oliver
John Stebbins plaint. conta Capta James Oliver Defendt according to Attachmt Dat. 17: 8: 1672. The plaint. withdrew his Accion.
Marshall conta Wiborn
Robert Marshall plaint. conta John Wiborn Defendt according to Attachmt Dat. 24. 7. 1672. The plaint. in failor of process was non Suited. Costs granted the Defendt.
Execucion issued xbr 20. 1672 for Costs.
[See above, p. 127.]
John Eyre of Havarill, came into Court & acknowledged a judgmt against himselfe & Estate for Eighteen pounds in Mony to John Frost Marriner of Boston. Octobr 29th 1672. according to bill. As Attests Isaac Addington Cler.
Execucion issued 4. Janur 72. for 18li mo
Execucion renewed 8br 23o 1676.
Hudson & Joy to Wharton
Capta William Hudson & Thomas Joy came into Court & acknowledged a a judgmt against themselves & Estates jointly & Severally to Richard Wharton agent to Robert Bendish & Compa for the Summe of seventy five pounds Eleven Shillings & Eleven pence in mony according to bond, done October. 29th 1672. As Attests Isaac Addington Cler.
Execucion issued Novembr 25. 1672 for £75:11:11: mo
Micajah Torrey, Ephraim Wight, Joseph Morse & Nathanial Whiting tooke the Oath of Freedom of this Colony. Octobr 29th 1672.
The Court orders a warrant to bee issued out to the Constable of Boston, to take the wearing apparrell of all sorts  belonging to Owen Jones, out of the hands of John Harris & deliver them to saide Jones.
Peter Goulding is ordered to attend the Court.
Administracion to the Estate of Charles Geetch deceased late Servant to Capta Thomas Savage, is granted to saide Savage, hee bringing in an Inventory of saide Estate & giving Security to Administor according to law. done Octobr 29th 1672. As Attests Isaac Addington Cler.
John Fisher’s Guardian
John Fisher, made choise of Serjant William Avery for his guardian, which the Court allowed & hee accepted.
Vigilant Fisher made choise of Serjant Thomas Fuller for his guardian, which the Court allowed & hee accepted.
Hannah Fisher’s Guardian
Hannah Fisher, made choise of Ensigne Danial Fisher for her guardian, which the Court allowed & hee accepted, being all Children of Leivt Joshua Fisher.
Benjamin Bullard of Medfeilde, took the Oath of freedom of this Colony. 8br 31th 1672.
Joseph Harris sentanced
The Court sentenceth Joseph Harris to pay five pound in Mony fine to the County for entertaining Thomas Slade a board his Vessell & agreeing with him to carry him to Barbados, the saide Slade being a Servant to Peter Fowler, the Carges of said Fowler’s pursuing of him is to bee deducted out of saide fine, which is twenty Shillings. Mr Richard Parker Engaged before the Court to Satisfy the same, that is to say, the whole fine
Timothy Hicks appeared in Court Novembr 1: 1672 & the Court allowed him administracion to the Estate of his late Father Richard Hicks deceased, hee bringing in an Inventory of saide Estate vpon oath & giveing Security to administer according to Law. As Attests Isaac Addington Cler.
Lawton & Bonner’s Bond
Henry Lawton & John Bonner having Severall Accions depending in Court, did Mutually agree to refer them, & the saide Lawton made choise of Mr Peter Lidget & saide Bonner for himselfe & partners chose Mr Tho: Deane & the Court appointed Mr John Joiliffe as a third man, which the persons jointly accepted off to refer to the aforesaide three Gentlemen all differences between them relating to any Voiadge or Voiadges in the Catch Recovery & acknowledge themselves bound in Court each to other in the Summe  of one thousand pounds to stand to theire award or of any two of them as a final determinacion. Mr Benjamin Gibbs standing bound for Mr Henry Lawton in the aforesaide Summe & Leivt Richard Cooke standing bound for John Bonner, vpon which they withdrew theire severall Accions, to bee jsued by the 20th of next January. & Mr Benjamin Gibbs & Henry Lawton bound themselves in Court jointly & severally in one hundred pounds apeice for Mr Henry Ashton & John Ireland, & John Bonner & James Everell the like summe for saide Bonner, bound themselves each to other jointly & Severally, to refer all Matters of difference between the saide Ashton Ireland & Bonner concerning any Voiadge or Voiadges in the Catch Recovery to the finall determinacon of the aforesaide Gentlemen, they being to give in theire award by the 20th of next january vpon which the plaint. withdrew his Accions.
[A consequence of one of the Ketch Recovery cases; see above, pp. 31–6, 152–3, 165–6. The record from this point becomes increasingly complicated. John Joyliffe, one of the arbitrators, declared that they were not able to make the award within the time prefixed (S. F. 1221.57); but Lawton’s refusal to perform an award of the arbitrators dated January 20, 1672 /73 is the ground of a suit brought against him by Bonner in the Suffolk Court on July 29, 1673 (see below, p. 291, and Records of Court of Assistants, iii. 250).
In the meantime, Lawton was committed to jail for failure to satisfy a judgment against him of 45l 10s in favor of Peck earlier in this same session (above, p. 163, and S. F. 162121).
Some of the evidence about their agreements and disagreements (S. F. 1221.62) follows:
William Timberlake aged 26 yeeres or thereabouts testifieth and Saith That sometime in June Last past Thomas Pecke and John Williams of Boston came to prison where Henry Lawton and this deponent were and there this Deponent heard Thomas Peck and Henry Lawton Say each to other that wt was then said should not bee made vse on afterward against neyther of them But now this deponent is Summoned by both of them to giue his Evidence of what hee then heard which was first that Peck Desired of Lawton that there might bee an Issue put to their difference without further going to Lawe; And 2ly if hee were in his the said Lawtons Debt that hee the said Lawton might pay himselfe while there was mony in his hands of Peckes, giuing him an Account how much it was To which Lawton answering yt there was soe much Due, which the Summe I doe not Remember Soe they broke off from any furdiscorse for that time But some dayes afterward my Cozen Peck came to prison againe and said in my hearing That if hee the said Lawton would giue him an Account of what hee had disbursed (Lawton being present) on the katch Recovery his mony was ready for him without going to Lawe for it To which Lawton replied yt the Account was Ready if his mony was ready But this Depo[nen]t Sawe neyther the money nor Account and further Saith not
Sworne in Court 2: 6m 1673, as attests
Isaac Addington Cler.
S. F. 1221.63
John Bonner aged 30 yeeres or thereabouts Saith That I sould to mr Thomas Pecke Eight Chaldron odd bushells of Coles the which came from England in the Katch Recovery amounting to about Eleaven pounds which said Summe is not Discounted vpon any part of the hire of the abovesaid vessell nowe in Controversy between the said Pecke & Lawton But part was Receiued by worke done vpon another vessell [and] otherwise and part is Due still to this Deponent
Sworne in Court 3:6: 73 as Attest Isaac Adington Cler.
Lawton’s next move was to bring three actions for the same damages and detriments against Bonner at the Middlesex County Court in April, 1673 (S. F. 1221.11). Bonner refused to join issue, a judgment was recorded against him, and he appealed to the Court of Assistants (Records of Court of Assistants, iii. 248). His reasons of appeal (S. F. 1221.29) are of especial interest, as they plead many points of law:
John Bonner his Reasons of appeale in the Case of Henry Lawton plaintif and him self defendan from the Judgment of the Countie Court held at Cambridg aprill the first 1673 in the Case of Charging the sayd bonner for designedly neglecting his dewtie as master and so forth
first as hath bin sayd in other cases because the then defendant was brought to that Court Contrary to the Law here established, and that Court had noe Legall powr to trie the Case as hee humbly Conceaueth, and for that end then Cyted the Law title actions page the 2d where its sayd that all actions of debt accoumpts slander and actions of the Case Concering debts and accoumpts shall hencforth bee tried where the plaintif pleaseth, so it bee in the Juriousdiction of that Court where the plaintif or defendant dwelleth. but neither plaintif nor defendant dwelled in the Juriousdiction of that Court, and therfore not triable there by Law
ly it was pretended that the then plaintif was a strainger, and for that end a Coppie of a law in wrighting was produced, which was made at a Genarall Court October 1672.657 Vppon which hee pleaded his Libertie there to sue the Answer was then made, that the then plaintif was noe strainger but an Inhabitant according to Law, and his Atturney mr Gibs then owned in Court that hee liued as a sarvant with him about a twelue moneths and longe after that, it was proued that hee was sent out from here vppon an Imployment, and to returne hither againe and to Issue his busines with his Imployer, which hee hath not yet don, as is suffitiently
knowne to Courts and Cuntry, and therfore noe strainger, but as it was then allso alleaged, the Law vppon which hee grounded his Libertie to sue, was noe Law in force, as not being printed nor published, and to proue that that Law was not in force the first libertie or Law in the Law booke was Cyted wher its sayd that noe mans person shall bee arested restrained noe mans goods or Estate shall be taken away from him and the Like as is there expressed refrenc there vnto being had, vnles it bee by vertue or Equitie of sum expres Law of the Cuntry warranting the same Establishd by the Genarall Court and suffitienly published,658 but the Law Cyted was not suffitiently published, and that farther appears in that the Law relating to spetiall Courts is againe reprinted and not this new law and therfore not in force in this Case but Nextly if it had bin in force, yet it noe way Concerned the then plaintif for hee was vppon noe Imediat Imploy either as marchent or marrinor as that Law expresseth. hee had mediat work enough here for hee was in the prisson at Boston and had let pas seuerall Courts, in the Countie where hee was, at which hee might haue tried his busines longe before and therfore it is but an emptie pretenc of his, hee was in noe neede to Run out of the way vppon that accoumpt but hee was willing to goe where his busines was not so well knowne
lastly because the then defendant appealed from the sentanc of the forfeture of the bond in this Case, and the Court Granted it and tooke Securities for the prossecuting of it, so that there was a bar in Law put against any farther to heare or trie the merrit of the Case Vntill the Superior Court appealed vnto, had determined that poynt in Law whether that Countie Court had Legall powr to trie the Case or not it seems to bee a plaine Contradiction to grant an appeale from the illegallatie of the proceding of the Court and yet to procede in the Case, the plaintifs appeale is soly in matter of Law, and not in matter of fact
Lawton’s answers to the reasons of appeal follow (S. F. 1221.22):
Henry Lawtons Answers to John Bonners Reasons of Appeale as he Calls them, from the sentence of the Honored Cort held at Camebridge Aprill the 1t 1673: wherein the said Lawton was plt and Bonnr Defendt, for 292li and the bond declared forfeited.
1 The plt or Appellant pleads that he was brought to that Cort Contrary to a Law, which the Appellant reciteth, The defendt Answers that he haueing noe dwelling in the Country but being A strainger is not by that Law oblidged to prosecution in any particuler Cort Nor Cann the Appellt Assigne to the Defendt any habitation or Dwelling to make him an Inhabitant, Except it be the prison, whereby his means be hath most injuriously for severall months had his Residence, And Although the Defendt did formerly for some time reside in the Country, yett was then never reputed an Inhabitant. And his remove and transient Condicen since hath wholy Exempted him from the Reputation and benefitt of an Inhabitant, As may Appeare in that he hath beene forced from time to time he hath had occation to give Security to the Clarke of the writts before he Could obteine Attachments Agt the Appellant or other his Compliers
2. The Appellt saith he did there Appeare and Answer soe farr as he judged the Case did require The defendt Answers he well knowing before the Error of the Appellants Judgmt made his Adress to the honored Cort (in whome Alone the power of passing that Sentence Remaynd,) for Judgmt; And not to the Appellant. And whereas he Chargeth the honord Cort of Camebridge with Apparent Injustice) vizt, sentencing him for his obedience, the Defendt Leaves to the honord Cort to Justify their Righteous proceedings Agt such Impudent Slanders.
3. The Supreame Authority of this Country seeing good to repeale the Law for Speciall Corts Instead thereof Enacted that persons in the defendts Condicion might sue at any Cort in the Country Nor Cann any Nicity in point of publication destroy the Equity thereof without dishonor to that most sage Authority that enacted the same, but what defect soever they may plead therein is supplied by that most Just and Equitable Law, Title tryalls, Sect. Last, which gives such Allowance to Straingers and New Commers as Reason and Relidgion requires, And what doth reason and Relidgion more require then that straingers vnder oppression should be spedily releived, and not be left by tedious suites and Attendances, to be devoured, And the Reason why the Defendt omitted suing the Appellt soe long, if it were soe long, was because he was A prisonr in Boston, by meanes of the said Bonner and his Compliers, And being not Acquainted with the Lawes, Ignorant whe[re] to goe to looke for his releife, And by the Injury donne him, by the said Bonner his Councellors and Compliers soe Impoverished that he was not able to Comence and prosecute his Action, but if he had forbeareance is n[ow] Acquittance. But the Defendts Injury haueing by such pleas as the Appellt now produces, been thus farr Increased, he humbly hopes God will by the Just verdict and Judgment of this honored Cort and Jury make way for his releife
The appeal was, however, allowed, and heard on September 2, 1673, before the Court of Assistants, which upheld the verdict for Lawton at the County Court at Cambridge in April. Bonner promptly “in open Court declared he did attaynt the jury,” and he and Richard Cooke and Humphry Hodges were jointly and severally bound in 50l apiece to the colony treasurer to prosecute their attainder (S. F., 1221. 13, printed in Records of Courts of Assistants, iii. 249). No record has been found of the trial. Attainting a jury “upon apparent corruption or errour in the Jury giving in their Verdict contrary to Law or Evidence” was permitted by an act of the General Court passed at the May session, 1672. Such attaint had to be prosecuted before the Court of Assistants, and tried by a jury of twenty-four men. Since this privilege was “perverted to the burthening of the Countrey with unreasonable trouble,” the General Court in 1684 imposed a fine of 34l (10l to the Colony and 2l to each juror) on the party who brought the attainder, if the first verdict was sustained, and allowed attainted jurors to bring action for slander. Colonial Laws of Massachusetts, Reprinted from the Edition of 1672, pp. 201, 319; cf. J. B. Thayer, Treatise on Evidence, p. 173. For further developments between Lawton and Bonner, see below, p. 214.]
Eliza Hicks’ guardian
Mr John Willoughby Marriner is appointed by the Court to bee guardian to Elizabeth Hicks daughter of Richard Hicks deceased, which hee accepted.
Tho: Hicks’ guardian
Nathaniell Beadle of Salem is appointed by the Court to bee guardian to Thomas Hicks, which hee accepted.
Margaret Prince her Oath
Margaret Prince of Hingham, being accused by Joseph Indian for Selling him three pintes of Sider for which she paide him threepence, whereby hee was druncke sometime this last Summer, she offered to purge her selfe by her Oath, which she did as followeth; I doe here Swear by the great & dreadfull Name of the Everliving god that I neither directly nor indirectly did Sell any Sider to saide Joseph Indian nor tooke mony for it, soe help mee god.
The Towne of Roxberry presented for a defect in theire high way betwixt Muddy river & Stony River, The Court orders that it bee repaired by the next Court, or the Towne to pay five pounds.
Roxbury & Dedham presented
The Townes of Roxbeery & Dedham presented for breach of Law in not renewing theire Markes in the line betwixt theire Townes according to the law page 6: Sect. 1659. The Court appoints Capta Thomas Savage & Capta Hopestill Foster as a Committee, to hear the differences between the Townes & to make return to the next Court of this County, the Committee to appoint the time.
Mary Wales pursentmt
Mary Wales of Dorchester presented for reproachfull words against Mr William Stoughton & the rest of the Select men of Dorchester Mr Stoughton owned  in Court, she had given them Satisfaction. The Court orders her to pay fees of Court & soe is discharged.
Jona Adams & Wife presented made default
Jonathan Adams & his wife of Medfielde, presented for absenting themselves from the publique worship of god on the Sabbath dayes, the persons being Summoned & making default in appearance. The Court orders an Attachmt to bee issued forth for them against the next Court.
The Towne of Brantery presented for defect of a Schoolemaster answer was made they were Supplied.
Sampson Shoare presented
Sampson Shore Constable of Hull presented for refusing to serve a replevin according to his office the presentmt not being proved fell.
Committee about Mahoon’s estate
The Court appoint’s Mr Antho Stoddard & Capta Wm Davis as a Committee to Set out & devide the remaining part of the Estate of Dorman Mahoone; which was left of that Set out to his son Daniell by a Committee of 7br 1668 equally between his second son David & daughter Margaret & to make return thereof to the next Court of this County. made theire return this Court.
[See John H. Edmonds, Dorman Mahoone alias Mathews, an early Boston Irishman. Proceedings of the Bostonian Society, January, 1917, pp. 44–71.]
Richard Loue, bound over to this Court, for wounding Joshua Hews junr in the head by throwing a stone at him which was proved against him. The Court Sentanceth him to pay five pounds in Mony fine to the County & fees of Court; vpon his peticion The Court remitted forty Shillings of his fine.
Way’s bond forfited
Leivt Richard Way being bound in a bond of for his Servant appearance at this Court, who being called for Leivt Way made answer hee was run away vpon which the Court declared his bond forfited.
Niteport, Graues & Tuckerman sentanced
Ruth Nueport, Deliverance Graves & Elisabeth Tuckerman, bound over to this Court for keeping riotous Company at unseasonable times of night & disturbing theire Neighbours The Court Sentanceth the saide Nueport & Graves, considering the imprisonment they have suffered to bee admonished in Court & pay fees & Elisabeth Tuckerman to pay fees of Court.
John Lewis, being bound over to this Court for abuseing of the Watch, of which hee was convict, the Court Sentanceth him. to pay fifty Shillings in mony fine to the County & fees of Court, standing committed till hee performe it.
Sammuell Judkin, bound over from the Court of Assistants to this Court on Suspicion of being naught with Sarah  an jndian Squaw. The Court Sentanceth him to bee whip’t with twenty Stripes or to pay five pounds in Mony fine to the County & fees of Court, & to pay charges of prosecution standing committed till the Sentance bee performed.
Joseph Long of Dorchester presented for Selling Sider by retaile contrary to law, which hee owned in Court. The Court Sentenceth him to pay five pounds in Mony fine to the County & fees of Court. Vpon his Peticion the Court remitted halfe his fine provided hee pay the other by the next County Court.
Robert Collins, bound over to this Court, for running away from his Master with Mr Sammuell Shrimpton’s Sloope which hee owned in Court. The Court Sentenceth him to bee Severely whip’t with twenty Stripes & to pay fees of Court, standing committed till the Sentance bee performed.
John Pemerton, committed to Prison for having a hand in conveying away Capta Mosely’s Servant & others from theire Masters, it not being proved the Court Sentanceth him to bee admonished & to pay fees of Court.
Christopher Lawson, being committed to prison till hee founde Security for the good behaviour, the Court orders him to pay fees of Court & prison & soe is discharged
Benjamin Gold, convicted for playing at Cards & keeping bad company, the Court Sentanceth him to pay five Shillings in Mony fine to the County & fees of Court & the Select men of Boston are to put him forth as a Servant to Mr John Paine of Hog island or some other good Mar.
Sammuell Bedwell, convict for Stealing severall goods from his Master Godfry Armitage & others. The Court Sentanceth him to bee whip’t with fifteen Stripes & to pay fees of Court & prison standing committed till the Sentance bee performed.
George Hall, convict for Stealing Linnen from Severall persons. The Court Sentanceth him to bee whip’t with twenty Stripes & to pay fees of Court & prison standing committed while the Sentance bee performed: and the persons to whom the Linnen belongs to take every one theire owne.
Christopher Mason, convict of getting Mr Rock’s Negroe maide Bess with Childe, which hee owned in Court. The Court Sentanceth him to bee whip’t with twenty Stripes & to pay fees of Court & prison & to give in bond of twenty pound for the good behaviour till the next Court of this County. Mr Joseph Rock acknowledged himselfe bound in the Summe of twenty pounds to the Treasuror  of the County of Suffolke, on condicion his man Christopher Mason shall bee of good behaviour till the next Court of this County & then appeare if in the Country.
Joseph Indian sentanced
Joseph an Indian, convict of drunkenness & abuseing severall persons in his drincke, The Court Sentanceth him to bee whip’t with ten Stripes & to pay Fees Court & prison & charge of Witnesses, standing committed till the Sentance bee performed.
Mary Plumb sentanced
Mary Plumb, convict of Lascivious carriage by being seene in bed wth a man. The Court Sentanced her to bee whip’t severely with fifteen stripes & to pay fees of Court & prison & to stand committed to the house of correction till the Select men of Dorchester provide a meete service for her.
Order to Tho: Smith
Vpon the Motion of Thomas Smith concerning Sara: Blacklock, The Court orders that the saide Smith get Goodwife Baxter, Goodwife Smith, Midwives; & the Midwife hee brought out of England; wth Mrs Parker & Mrs Sandys to repaire to the prison & to Search saide Blacklock, whether ever she hath had a Childe & to make return thereof to the adjournmt of this Court.
[See above, pp. 128, 149, 164–5, and below, pp. 189, 237.]
Aron Stevens, being convicted for Enticing Servants to run away from theire Masters; The Court Sentanceth him to bee whip’t with ten Stripes & to pay fees of Court & prison.
Waldren & Smith’s bond for arbitracion
Isaac Waldren, as Attourny to his Brother William Waldren & Christopher Smith appeared in Court Novr 6. 1672. & mutually agreed to put all matters of difference whatsoever between them to reference, & the sd Waldren chose Lievt Richard Cooke, & saide Smith chose Capta William Davis and the Court appointed Capta Thomas Lake as vmpire in case the other two doe not agree, & the parties aforesaide bound them selves each to other in the Summe of two hundred & fifty pounds apeice in Money to stand to theire award according to law as a finall determinacion, the saide award to bee given in in fourteen dayes next following.
[See above, pp. 135, 158, 163–4, and below, pp. 193, 202]
Peter Goulding, convict of antedating Writings & stirring up persons to goe to law, and buiing of Debts to Vexe others with Suites. The Court Sentanceth him to bee disinabled for pleading in any Court as an Attourny or Assigne (except in his owne case) and that hee doe not undertake to draw up any writings for others without allowance of Authority & to pay the charges of prosecution & fees of Court. 
order to ye Treasuror
The Court orders the County Treasuror to repaire the bridge at Roxberry neere the fulling Mill.
Mrs Dorothy Jones had Licence granted her to sell bottle Sider.
Return of the Committee for devid the land of Dorman Mahoon
In pursuance of the order of this honoured Court, Wee whose Names are under written, haue devided the Land of the late Dorman Mahoone as followeth, one moity from Heugh Drury’s corner post of his fence up the Streete South seventy seven foote in front, from Heugh Drury’s post west forty two foote, from thence cross the ground to a post mark’t in Emmans’ Fence forty six foote, from saide post to the Street on a streight line & this to bee one single divicion.
The rest of the land from Emmans’ corner post by the lane towards the feilde sixty eight foote & halfe, thence along Heugh Drury’s fence to a marked post eighty five foote, thence to a post in Emmans’ fence marked 46 foote, provided if David possess the first Dividend hee must remove the frame to the other Dividend where they will haue it Set.
Dat. in Boston Novr 6: 1672.
[See above, pp. 182–3.]
[Order to Mather]
In answer to the peticion of Jonathan Atherton the Court orders that notice bee given to Timothy Mather to appear at the Adjourment of this Court to answer saide Atherton’s complainte. afterwards vpon hearing of his being in Towne the Court sent for him presently.
Peticion of Richd Thayre answered
In answer to the Peticion of Richard Thayre of Brantery concerning differences between him & Joane Pray widow. The Court appoint’s Leivt John Holebrooke, Leivt Edmund Quinsey & Capta Richard Bracket as Committee to hear the differences between saide Thayre, widow Pray & her son & to make return thereof to the Adjournmt of this Court.
The Court Adjourned to the 28th Novembr 1672. 
Seth Flint’s guardians
Seth Flint, Son of Mr Henry Flint late of Brantery deceased, made choise of Mr Richard Collicot & Serjant Richard Ellis for his Guardians; which they accepted of & the Court allowed.
Court order about Pray of Brantry
Vpon Informacion given into this Court, by a Committee appointed by this Court, to hear the differences between Richard Thayre & Widow Joane Prey of Brantery concerning the saide Pray’s Living in a house that endangereth her life, & refusing to accept of better provicion The Court orders that the Select men of Brantery veiw the saide Pray’s habitacion & if they finde it to bee dangerous for her & shee to bee wilfull, that then they secure her by providing some other habitacion for her which shall not bee a weakning of her title to her now habitacion.
Mason’s discharge from treynings
Robert Mason of Milton is discharged from ordinary Treynings.
Mr John Winslow, Ephraim Savage, Joseph Wheeler & Manassah Beck all of Boston tooke the Oath of freedom of this Colony.
Marshall Wayte admr to Biggleston
Marshall Richard Wayte, is appointed by the Court to bee Administrator to the Estate of John Biggleston of Bristow Marriner deceased, who dyed on board the Ship SeaFlower Tho: Smith Mar in her late Voiyadge from Jamaica, hee bringing an Inventory of sd Estate vpon Oath.
Order about Pococke
Vpon Caution given into this Court by the Selectmen of Boston against John Pocock residing in theire Towne, The Court ordered the saide Pocock to depart the Towne
Constance Wooster convict of Stealing Severall peeces of linnen, from the wife of Joseph Stocker The Court Sentanceth her to return the saide Stocker her Linnen againe & to pay her six Shillings in Mony being that threefold restitution that the law requires & to pay fees of Court.
William Citterne, convict of Severall drunkennesses & owning his attempt to poison himselfe. The Court Sentanceth him to beewhip’t with twenty stripes & to pay fees of Court & to stand committed to  to prison till the next Court of this County, except his Mar procure an order from the Magestrates in Boston for his Liberty sooner.
Mosanto Indian sentenced
Mosanto Indian convict of going into the house of Nathaniell Clap of Dorchester in the night The Court considering his punishmt already by imprisonmt Sentanceth him to bee admonished & to pay the Charges of prosecution & fees of Court.
Anne Puglice, convict of Selling Brandy contrary to Law. The Court Sentanceth her to pay five pounds fine in Mony to the County & fees of Court & to stand committed till she finde Sureties for her good behaviour, twenty pound bond her husband & ten pound apeice two Sureties.
Sarah Blacklock, convict of belying & falsely accusing her Selfe, in Saying shee miscarried of a Childe which was buried privately, who vpon Search made is judged never to haue had a Childe. The Court Sentanceth her to bee whip’t severely with twenty Stripes, paying the charge of prison & Fees of Court is discharged & is to return to her Master & to serve soe much time as shall make good what time shee hath lost & pay her charges & the former order of Court to Tho: Smith concerning her is reversed.
[See above, pp. 128, 149, 164–5, 185, and below, p. 237.]
Mr Humphry Hodges convict of Vilifying & reproaching the Courts & theire proceedings. The Court Sentanceth him to pay ten pound in mony fine to the County & fees of Court the saide Hodges appealed & the saide Humphry Hodges as principle in twenty pounds & Mr Richard Collicot & Thomas Clarke as Sureties in ten pounds apeice acknowledged themselves jointly & severally bound to . . . prosecute his appeale . . .
[Hodges was a friend of John Bonner, and the vilification in question was in connection with the judgment in Bonner v. Ashton (above, p. 97), one arising out of the voyage of the ketch Recovery. The main testimony (S. F. 1153.4) follows:
William Norman aged thirty Six yeares or thereabouts Testifieth & saith, that I this Deponent being in the Towne house with Mr John Saffine on Saturday Last afternoone being the third of August, I heard a hot dispute between the saide Saffine & Mr Humphry Hodges, about the Accion that was in Court betweene Mr Henry Ashton & John Bonner; wherein the saide Hodges many times charged the saide Saffine with base unworthy dealings in that matter, saying five or Six Severall times over, that Mr Saffine had gone in an underhand way & prepossessed the Deputy Governor & the Jury with the case & there were three witnesses hee could bring that would take theire oathes of it; to which the saide Saffine replied tis a most notorious falsehood, for I never spake one word either with the Deputy,660 or any one of the jury or any one of the magestrates, out of Court, to this very moment, & quoth hee this is a meere device to Salue yor Selfe & cast the reproach upon mee, but they that make lyes theire refugesh all Surely come to nothing, & as for yor part Mr Hodges you haue beene a meere jncendiary in this buisness & are as a reede of Egipt to Bonner for by yor advice hee hath leaned upon you & you haue run into his hand, quoth Mr Hodges I doe not vallue a Straw what the Court hath done, I will not give Ashton five pounds for all hee will get, why replied I (this Deponant) what doe you make Nothing of the Court & jury; quoth Mr Saffine are the Court unwise & the jury fooles, & haue you all the wisdom, doth noe body understand anything but you, surely saide I this Deponent if a Court & jury bee nothing strangers will haue Little Encouragement to goe to law in New England quoth Mr Hodges noe it is nothing for what one Court doth another undoeth. there was many more words to this purpose all which I this Deponent cannot remember, but as saide, Hodges did often charge Mr Saffine for Endeavouring to corrupt the Jury & prepossess the Deputy, I this Deponent saw the Deputy661 comming up the Streete towards Mr Usher’s, vpon which I saide looke yonder comes the Deputy hee’le end the buisness presently, come quoth Mr Saffine to Mr Hodges goe with mee to the Deputy & wee’le aske him whether it bee soe or noe, but Mr Hodges would not goe, whereat Mr Saffine replied what are you ashamed of yor Craft, & to owne what you haue saide, quoth Mr Hodges I doe not say you spoke with the Deputy but that there are three witnesses that will take theire oathes of it whereupon Mr Saffine went out to meete the Deputy & called mee this Deponent who further saith not.
Sworne unto August 8th 1672 before Edw. Ting Assist.
Four others testified to the same conversation (S. F. 1153.4). Respecting Hodges’ appeal to the Court of Assistants, the following Answer (S. F. 1153.1) by Isaac Addington, Clerk of the County Court, appears to have been effective:
Answers to Mr Humphry Hodges, his pretended Reasons of Appeale from the Sentance of the County Court held at Boston on adjournment. November 28th 1672
1: Whereas hee saith the fact hee is charged with doth consist in matter of words: to this I answer hee may not onely legally bee charged but alsoe justly Sentanced for reproachfull words when legally proved as these are; alsoe the appealant seemes to insist much upon the words of his bond, that noe other matter is hee bound to answer to, but such words as tend to the reproach of the Dept Governor in this the appealant Subtilly misinformes this honord Court & leaues out the halfe of his charge, being bound over as well for reproaching the Jury as the Dept Govemor & whereas hee argues from the word (tending) that what hee hath saide falls short of a reproach in good reason & law to this I answer though hee bee onely bound over to answer for words tending to the reproach of the Dept Govr & the Jury, yet upon the tryall of the case the matter being proved to bee reproachfull hee is justly Sentanced for the Sam[e] As for jnstance a person being committed upon Suspicion of theft if upon the tryall it bee proved against him, hee is Sentanced for his theft, notwithstanding his Mittimus bee but upon Suspicion; alsoe the appealant saith the words are not certainly or legally proved, that I leaue to the wise consideracion of this honord Court whether three positiue Witnesses make not a legall proofe; neither are there such contradictions & disagreements in the Evidences as the appealant would seeme to make, for two of the Witnesses agree in his saying positiuely that mr Saffin went in an underhand way & preposessed the Dept Govr & the Jury with the case, & what could this doe less then reflect dishonor both upon the Dept Govr & the Jury, to say they had received a preinformation of a case they were to judge of from one of the parties: and whereas the appealant Saith the Dept Govr was pleased at his tryall to Say hee did waue & pass by the whole matter that concerned himselfe; if the appealant could as truely haue said the whole Court had done soe, by what was Evidenced against him, then had it been a good reason; but though the Dept Govr passed it by, yet the rest of the Court, who were the proper judges of the case did not, as appeares by theire Sentance.
2. To his 2d Reason, Whereas the Appealant saith, notwithstanding all before saide & done in the purmises, hee was Sentanced to pay ten pounds in mony for villifying & reproaching the Courts & theire proceedings, grant it bee soe, yet legall enough being Sentanced for what was proved: & whereas hee saith hee never knew any man accused for one thing & condemned for another as by his bond & judgment will appeare, being contrary to common reason & practice of Courts: I humbly conceiue the appealant is under a mistake; for hee is Sentanced for what was proved against him upon his tryall & that very legally, & according to practice of Courts; as for jnstance a man may bee bound over for a Riott, yet vpon the tryall it may fall short of proofe, but if it bee proved against him that hee did Swear or was drunck, hee may bee legally Sentaneed for his oaths or Drunkenness though not bound over to answer for them, yea many times a man is Sentanced for a Fact committed in Court, neither doth the law say a man shalbee Summoned six dayes beforehand to answer for a crime: and whereas the appealant passes his judgment on the Court’s Sentance to bee contrary to common Reason & practice of Courts, because the Court’s Sentance & his charge in the bond are not in all the terms of it alike this is a gross mistake for the Sentance ought not to bee compared with the bond onely, but with the Evidences on which it is grounded: alsoe hee saith that the Testimonies of Norman & Seymor differ in the very essentiall word that altereth the whole Sence & applicacion of the words; I answer noe such difference appeares; for the one saith hee vallued not a Straw what the Court had done, & the other hee vallued not a Straw what was done, which must necessarily imply the Court, by his following words of what one Court doth another undoeth, so that by both theire Testimonies & alsoe by Willm Shutes it plainly appeares hee had a very slight Esteem of the Courts proceedings; & although the case on Bonner’s side were never soe just, yet it did not then soe appeare to the Court by the proofes before them as hee himselfe confesseth, when hee saith the Courts judgment might bee just to cast it as they did, neither doth the Equity of Bonner’s case justify the Appealant’s reproachfull Speeches, notwithstanding all his elaborate paines in unravelling of the Testimonies in his pretended vindication: Whence the discourse arose is unknown & whether the Witnesses had malice or noe it matters not, Malice may bee a good jnformer though not a judge: and whereas the Appealant soe much reflects on the Evidences in Saying they Sweare carelesly & desparately, his soe Saying doth not make it soe & although jrish men & Strangrs yet might theire Oaths bee as true as Englishmens & inhabitants & are as valid in law.
3. To his third & last Reasons, wherein hee objects a mistake in the judgment in that it saith hee is convicted for reproaching & villifying the Courts and theire proceedings in ye plurall number & an Error in judgment Nulls the judgment. I answer the Evidences doe Speake of his reproaching more Courts then one & therefore is the judgment according to Evidence & noe mistake in judgment. And whereas in the close of his discourse hee doth humbly craue that hee may haue the benefit of ye law & priviledge of a Subject making his application to the Gentlemen of the Jury as they are upon theire Solemn Oaths, not to haue respect of persons pretending to stand up for the liberty of the people. To this I answer the Appealant hereby, (notwithstanding a great flourish of a vindication & cleering of his jnnocency) as to his reproaching the Courts, seemes highly to reproach the very Court appealed from as if hee were there denied the liberty of the law or priviledge of a Subject; which if hee thereby jntends a tryall by a Jury; I answer it was never denied him neither did hee ever move it; I know not what else hee should jntend by ye benefit of ye law or a Subject’s priviledge, without hee should desire a priviledge which I thincke few Subjects but himselfe would, to villify & reproach Courts at his pleasure & to goe unpunished for it, & the appealant Seemeth to bee somewhat conscious of his guilt herein in the very last expressions of his reasons wherein hee craues pardon of this Court. I shall humbly leaue the consideracion & jssue of the whole Matter to the wise Determinacion of this honord Court & Subscribe mySelfe.
Yor Worship’s most humble Servant Isaac Addington Clarke of the County Court of Suffolk, by appointmt of the saide Court]
The Court orders that James Jarrett bee continued in prison till the next Court of this County except the Magestrates of Boston see cause to the contrary.
Mrs Abigaile Johnson had licence granted her to Sell Sider by the quart, but not above two pence per quart shee giving in bond to observe the law with Sureties. 
John Marshall’s addicionall Salery
Vpon the Motion of John Marshall for an addition to his Salery for looking to the Towne house. The Court orders the Treasuror to pay him ten shillings per annum more then formerly.
Return of arbitraters concern: Smith & Waldren
Vpon the return of the Arbitraters concerning the cases between Christopher Smith & William Waldren that they had done nothing therein nor could finde any ground to bottom an award vpon. The Court declares that the Verdict of the Jury stands good & the party cast hath liberty to enter an appeale according to law.
[See above, p. 186, and below, p. 202.]
Order about Bumpas
Hannah Bumpas, being founde by Articles of confederacion to bee an jnhabitant of Hingham. The Court orders Yt the saide Bumpas bee sent down thither & that the Select men of Hingham take care of & make that provicion that is meete for her & that the Clarke grant a Warrant to the Constable of Boston to send her thither
[See below, pp. 219, 225.]
Mr Dudly’s Peticion answered
In answer to the Peticion of Mr Joseph Dudly & Sammuell Hunting admrs to the Estate of Mr John Allen deceased. The Court empoures them to Entrust some meete person to take care of the Estate of Mr John Allen his son soe as it may bee Secured & emproved for his interest
Vpon Caution given by the Select men of Boston against Nicholas Best residing in theire Towne. the saide Best appeared in Court & saide hee was to depart in two or three dayes to Virginia.
In answer to the Peticion of Serjant William Avery of Dedham The Court a llowes him to practice physick & Chirurgery.
Paine to Atwater
Mr John Paine appeared in Boston the first of febro 1671, before Major Eliazer Lusher & Edward Ting Esqrs and acknowledged a judgment against himselfe & Estate to mr Joshua Atwater for twenty four pounds in mony due by bill this done as abouesd as Attests Free Grace Bendall Cler.
Execucion issued 21. 8br 1673.
this mis’t Entry in its propr place.