USA > Massachusetts > Hampden County > Springfield > Colonial justice in western Massachusetts, 1639-1702; the Pynchon court record, an original judges' diary of the administration of justice in the Springfield courts in the Massachusetts Bay Colony > Part 12
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45
On May 26, 1658 the General Court, during its pleasure, author- ized the commissioners of Springfield and Northampton, jointly, or any four of them, to keep courts yearly in Springfield on the last Tuesday of March and in Northampton on the last Tuesday in Sep- tember with jurisdiction to hear and determine, by jury or without (according to the liberty the law allowed in County Courts) , all civil actions not exceeding twenty pounds damages and all criminal cases, not exceeding five pounds fine or ten stripes. Appeal was re- served to the County Court at Boston. This court was given power to grant licenses for the keeping of ordinaries or houses of common entertainment selling wine, cider, or strong liquors, to give the oath of freedom or fidelity to qualified persons, to bind to the peace or good behavior, and to commit to prison felons and malefactors, all
10 4 ibid. (Part I) 115, 135, 180, 213- 214; Rec. 54.
11 4 ibid. (Part I) 227, 271. A petition to the General Court by several North- ampton inhabitants, dated April 10, 1656, requested that Holton, Bascom, and Elmer be continued as commissioners; that they might appeal to the Court of Assistants
in cases of capital crimes and causes of great discernment; that in other causes they might be tried by the three Spring- field and the three Northampton commis- sioners, with jurors equally chosen from the two towns. 1 Trumbull, Hist. North- ampton 32.
12 1 Ms. Northampton Town Rec. 9.
95
JURISDICTIONAL BASES
according to law.18 In effect, the commissioners of the two towns were authorized to hold courts twice yearly comparable in jurisdic- tion to the County Courts in the more settled parts of the colony.
Presumably this commission in no way derogated from the au- thority previously exercised by the Springfield and the Northampton commissioners respectively. Yet such construction admits of some doubt in the case of the Springfield commissioners since the powers exercised in civil actions and criminal cases by such commissioners under their existing commission were in some respects greater than those to be exercised jointly with the Northampton commissioners under the May 26, 1658 commission. Further, under the former com- mission the appeal provided was to the Court of Assistants, under the latter, to the County Court at Boston, a court lower in the judi- cial hierarchy. An uncharitable explanation is that the General Court, in issuing the commission, erroneously assumed that the Springfield commissioners exercised only the usual powers of com- missioners for ending small causes, as in the case of Northampton.
In any event, the first joint court authorized by the May 26, 1658 commission was held at Northampton on September 28, 1658. The Record does not disclose the commissioners present, with the excep- tion of Pynchon and Holyoke, but it may be that several Northamp- ton commissioners also attended.14 One of the matters heard was a complaint of Elmer, apparently chosen the third commissioner at Northampton, against William Holton, one of the other commis- sioners, and Robert Bartlett, for defaming Elmer by saying that he had come to Springfield in a disorderly way to take his oath.15
The second and last meeting of this joint court took place at Springfield on March 29, 1659. At this court the three Northampton commissioners appeared and presented themselves by certificate un- der the hand of the constable of Northampton to be sworn. At this point some present from Northampton objected "against their three men as being not legally appoynted to the work they came for, in that they were not allowed by any superior Power as the Law provides; and in that they were nonfreemen as to this Commonwealth, and for other causes." The entry then states that "after the busyness was longe debated the result was that there could be noe Corte Legally kept here without further Order from superior Powers: and soe the Assembly brake up." No causes were heard except one in which the
13 4 Rec. Mass. Bay (Part I) 335. The General Court order was entered in the Record (p. 73) .
14 Rec. 73-76. See Wright, Indian Deeds 31-32
15 The Northampton town records actu- ally do not show that Edward Elmer was chosen commissioner. 1 Ms. Northampton Town Rec. 9.
96
INTRODUCTION
parties agreed that the Springfield commissioners should determine an action of debt.16
What was behind the objection made to the Northampton com- missioners is not apparent, but it may have been another facet of the feud reflected in Edward Elmer's complaint. The Northampton town records reveal that on March 11, 1658/9 Holton, Williams, and Ly- man were "chosen Commissioners for this Town for the year ensuing to end small causes." 17 The apparent basis of the objection was that the commissioners had not been allowed of by the General Court or a County Court and, secondly, that they were not freemen as re- quired by law in the case of commissioners.
The inhabitants of Springfield quickly sought relief from the General Court which on May 28, 1659 ordered that Pynchon, Hol- yoke, and Chapin, for the year ensuing and until further order, have full power and authority to govern the inhabitants of Springfield in terms virtually identical with the 1651 commission to Henry Smith, except that there was no reference to the power to give oaths to con- stables and to examine witnesses under oath. The order also referred Northampton commissioners to Springfield, "in reference to County Courts," which courts were to be held at Springfield on the last Tues- day in March and on the last Tuesday in September, unless the com- missioners saw just cause to hold one session at Northampton. These courts were to have in all respects "the power and priviledges of any County Courte" until the General Court saw cause to determine oth- erwise. However, only four jurors from Northampton were to be warned to Springfield and vice versa. All fines, as well as payments for entry of actions, were to go toward defraying the charges of these courts. The commission granted in 1658 respecting Northampton was repealed. Lastly, the order provided that, out of court, the com- missioners, or any two of them, agreeing, might act in all respects as one magistrate might, either at Springfield or at Northampton.18 The intent of this order is far from clear. In effect, three jurisdictional standards are referred to but the powers first granted seem inconsist- ent with either of the others.
On the same date John Pynchon took an oath before the Gen- eral Court for the faithful discharge of the commission, was au- thorized to give an oath to the other two commissioners in the form appointed by the Court in October 1652, and was empowered to sol- emnize marriages. At the same time William Holton, Arthur Wil-
16 Rec. 77-79.
17 1 Ms. Northampton Town Rec. 43. 97. See also 1 Trumbull, Hist. Northampton
18 4 Rec. Mass. Bay (Part I) 378-379.
97
JURISDICTIONAL BASES
liams, and Richard Lyman were allowed of by the General Court as commissioners to end small causes at Northampton.19
The Record contains only two meetings of the "County Court" established by the May 28, 1659 order; these were held at Spring- field in September 1659 and March 1660.20 However, a volume of records in the Registry of Probate at Northampton, Massachusetts, in which the records of the duly constituted County Court for Hamp- shire were later entered, reveals that the above "County Court" held sessions at Springfield or Northampton (and once at Hadley) in Sep- tember 1660 and in March and September in 1661 and 1662. In or- der to show the development of this jurisdiction of the commission- ers, those entries appearing in the Registry of Probate volume through the September 30, 1662 session are included along with the Record.
Prior to the formal establishment of a County Court for Hamp- shire several other orders of the General Court supplemented the powers or modified the structure of the Springfield court. On No- vember 12, 1659, the General Court granted the commissioners of Springfield power to administer the freeman's oath to any capable by law of taking it in the plantations on the Connecticut River. In ad- dition, the "new towne" upon the Connecticut, Hadley, was to be under the power of the Springfield commissioners in reference to County Courts until further order of the General Court. Later, on May 31, 1660, the General Court commissioned John Webster, Sr., of Hadley with magistratical powers for the ensuing year to act in all civil and criminal cases as one magistrate might do and ordered that he join with the commissioners "in keeping the Courts at Spring- field," presumably the "County Courts." Webster, a former governor of Connecticut, sat with the Springfield commissioners in September 1660 and in March 1661. He died within a fortnight of the latter sitting.21
On October 16, 1660 the following entry appears in the records of the General Court:
It is ordered by this Court, that Springfeild County Court be and is heereby impowred to erect and improove a prison and house of correc- tion, as other countys have, any deficiency for want of magistrates not- withstanding, and that the commissioners for that Court, or any two of
19 4 ibid. (Part I) 373, 379-380. The Northampton town records show no elec- tion of commissioners for ending small causes between March 10, 1658/9 and March 19, 1660/1 when William Clark,
William Woodward, and Henry Cunliffe were chosen commissioners. 1 Ms. North- ampton Town Rec. 15, 25.
20 Rec. 82, 84.
21 4 Rec. Mass. Bay (Part I) 406, 420
98
INTRODUCTION
them, be impowred to act in any case concerning the same, and for the committing of offendors thereto and releasing of them againe, as any one magistrate may doe.22
On May 22, 1661 the General Court, upon motion of the inhab- itants, granted town status to Hadley and ordered that "for the bet- ter government of the people, and suppressing of sinns there" some meet persons, annually presented by the freemen, should be commis- sioned and empowered to hear and determine all civil actions, not exceeding five pounds, without a jury, to deal in all criminal cases according to law, where the penalty did not exceed ten stripes for one offense, and, together with the commissioners for Springfield and Northampton, or the greater part of them, to keep the courts ap- pointed at Springfield and Northampton. Any person sentenced by the Hadley commissioners, either in civil or criminal cases, might appeal to the court at Springfield or Northampton. However, the Hadley commissioners did not sit as a "County Court" with the Springfield and Northampton commissioners until March 31, 1663. They did, however, appear before John Pynchon on July 12, 1661, as ordered by the General Court, and took their oaths for the faithful discharge of their duties.23
The same May 22 order, recognizing the lack of a grand jury sys- tem, also ordered that the jurymen freemen for trials at the Spring- field and Northampton courts should take information and make presentments to the court of misdemeanors as grand jurors usually did or ought to do.24 This order is probably the genesis of the prac- tice which later obtained in the Hampshire County Court of having petty jurors double in brass as grand jurors.
Finally, on May 7, 1662, in order that public affairs might with more facility be transacted according to the established laws of the colony, the General Court ordered that the towns of Springfield, Northampton, and Hadley constitute a county called Hampshire and enjoy the liberties and privileges of any other county. Springfield was to be the shire town and the courts and shire meetings were to be held alternately at Springfield and Northampton.25 Apparently the establishment of this new county was not regarded as ipso facto ter- minating the existing authority to hold "County Courts." The first shire organizational meeting was not held until April 2, 1663; the first County Court for Hampshire, described as such in the records,
22 4 ibid. (Part I) 434.
23 4 ibid. (Part II) 11-12; Rec. 94.
24 The complaint of Thomas Stanley of Hadley against Robert Williams "by Thomas Coleman Juryman" for violently
taking away cattle being driven to pound (1 Hamp. Cty. Probate Ct. Rec. 15) may have been pursuant to this power.
25 4 Rec. Mass. Bay (Part II) 52.
99
JURISDICTIONAL BASES
did not sit until March 31, 1663.26 While the record is not explicit, the personnel of this and several succeeding courts probably was based upon the provisions of the above May 22, 1661 commission to the Hadley commissioners.
The extent of the powers exercised by the Springfield commis- sioners after May 7, 1662, or perhaps March 31, 1663, must have depended upon the terms of the 1659 commission, since there is no record of the town's having elected Pynchon, Holyoke, and Chapin as commissioners for ending small causes. This meant that these com- missioners, or any two of them, had the powers of a single magistrate. This view is consistent with the entries in the Record, except that in one instance Pynchon, sitting alone, imposed fines for drunkenness upon two Indians.27
JOHN PYNCHON AS MAGISTRATE
Whatever powers the commissioners of Springfield retained after the events of 1662-63 were terminated on May 3, 1665 when John Pynchon was chosen assistant, an office to which he was reelected an- nually until 1686 when a new government was organized by Dudley. The entries in the Record from May 3, 1665 to May 25, 1686 (the date of the first meeting of the President and Council of New Eng- land) , are thus of jurisdiction exercised by Pynchon as a magistrate. There are no entries for the period between May 1665 and Septem- ber 1670 other than notations of the swearing of constables and the taking of the oath of a freeman or of the oath of fidelity. One enig- matic entry which follows several as to swearing constables-"After- ward: I entred them in my Law Booke"-indicates that Pynchon may have kept another book in which he entered cases heard in his capacity as magistrate.28 However, no such volume has been found nor any further reference to one.
The election of John Pynchon also affected the composition of the County Court, for on May 3, 1665 the General Court ordered that the County Court for Hampshire should thenceforth be kept by John Pynchon, as magistrate, and by such associates elected as the law directed. It also ordered that the commissioners for small causes in Northampton and Hadley continue in their commissions in other respects as formerly. As to the Springfield commissioners, there had been a cessation of their commission by Pynchon's election as mag- istrate and the town's affairs now properly belonged to his care and oversight.29
26 Pynchon Waste Book for Hampshire
28 Rec. 134.
1-2.
27 Rec. 100.
29 4 Rec. Mass. Bay (Part II) 148.
100
INTRODUCTION
PYNCHON AS MEMBER OF THE DUDLEY AND ANDROS COUNCILS
The General Court records for May 12, 1686 show that Pynchon was again elected assistant but that he apparently did not take the oath of office. Technically, this may have terminated his power as magistrate but in any event the lapse was short-lived. On May 25 Joseph Dudley, at the first meeting of the President and Council in Boston read his October 8, 1685 commission as President of the Council for New England. This commission nominated and ap- pointed seventeen councilors, including John Pynchon. On the same day the members of the Council were authorized to hear all causes under forty shillings.30
The first case heard by Pynchon as a member of the Council, on June 23, 1686, involved the misdemeanor of disturbing the peace and swearing, and resulted in a fine of five shillings for breaking the peace and three and six for swearing.31 This case raises the question pre- viously noted as to what jurisdiction members of the Council exer- cised in criminal offenses, and for that matter, what jurisdiction jus- tices of the peace had in such matters. The records of the President and Council are silent; the commissions of the peace might afford at least a partial answer but none have been uncovered.32 Thus Pyn- chon's jurisdiction in criminal matters during this period is not known. It may be that members of the Council assumed the same jurisdiction in criminal matters as magistrates under the First Charter.
On December 20, 1686 Sir Edmund Andros arrived in Boston. His June 1686 commission as governor of the Dominion of New England named John Pynchon as a member of the Council, as did the instructions accompanying his second commission of April 17, 1688.33 However, no order has been found relating to the jurisdic- tion of councilors in civil matters comparable to the June 10 order under Dudley, nor any commission of the peace for Hampshire dur- ing the Andros regime, although undoubtedly Pynchon would have been included in such commission. The entries in the Record during such period (the last being in September 1688) relate to civil ac- tions, with the exception of a presentment for failure to ward, but
30 Matthews, Notes on the Massachu- setts Royal Commissions, 1681-1775 (1913) 5, 29-30; Dudley Records 229-231.
31 Rec. 199.
32 The records of the President and Council and entries in the Record indi- cate that during July-September 1686, Jo- seph Hawley, William Clark, John Hol-
yoke, Peter Tilton, Samuel Partrigg, and a "Mr. Haley" were commissioned justices of the peace. Pynchon, Tilton, and Clark were commissioned to hold the County Court for Hampshire. Dudley Records 258, 271; 2 Ms. Mass. Council Rec. 54, 77, 79; Rec. 198.
33 1 Laws N.H. 143, 235.
101
JURISDICTIONAL BASES
do not disclose the capacity in which Pynchon held court. It may be that the June 10, 1686 order referred to was continued in effect by the March 8, 1686/7 proclamation noted earlier.34
PYNCHON EXERCISING MAGISTRATICAL POWERS
Since Pynchon did not regain the status of assistant following the overthrow of Andros, Peter Tilton, as magistrate, became the top judicial figure in Hampshire. However, on September 8, 1689 the General Court ordered that Pynchon among others be allowed and confirmed an associate for the County Court of Hampshire and be invested with magistratical power until further settlement. There are no entries in the Record for the period covered by this appoint- ment. On June 2, 1690 Pynchon was again confirmed and approved by the General Court as an associate of the County Court and in- vested wtih magistratical power.35 An entry in the County Court rec- ords relates that on May 20, 1691 he was further invested with mag- istratical power by the General Court. A March 29, 1692 County Court entry notes that Pynchon and three others were chosen associ- ates for the year ensuing, but no further investment of Pynchon with magistratical powers has been found.36 However, the Record contains no entries between July 22, 1691 and September 12, 1692.
PYNCHON AS JUSTICE OF THE PEACE
No first-hand evidence appears as to the date when Pynchon be- came a justice of the peace under the Second Charter. Whitmore indi- cates that Pynchon and four others were commissioned justices of the peace and collectively the Court of General Sessions of the Peace for Hampshire on May 27, 1692 (Pynchon being of the quorum) .37 How- ever, the Act for the Holding of Courts of Justice was not passed un- til June 28, 1692, and the first meeting of the Court of General Ses- sions of the Peace for Hampshire was not held until July 26, 1692.38 A June 15, 1692 law, continuing in effect certain earlier laws, in pro- viding that "the several justices are hereby impowered to the execu- tion of said laws as the magistrates formerly were" indicates that justices of the peace may have been commissioned soon after the ar- rival of Governor Phips on May 14.39
34 Ibid. 249. That some commissions of the peace issued see Andros Records 466- 467, 473.
35 1 Laws N.H. 327, 406.
36 Rec. Cty. Ct. Hamp. 143, 151; Vol. A, Registry of Deeds, Springfield, Hampden County, 1690-92 301, 313.
37 Mass. Civil List 139. 38 1 Acts and Res. Prov. Mass. Bay 37; Rec. Cty. Ct. Hamp. 126.
39 1 Acts and Res. Prov. Mass. Bay 27; Rec. Cty. Ct. Hamp. 158.
102
INTRODUCTION
In any event, Pynchon did not hear his first case until September 12, 1692; presumably he had been commissioned a justice of the peace by that date. As was the case for the earlier period, no commis- sion of the peace has been found for Hampshire for 1692-1701. How- ever, the form of the commission of the peace for York County and the statutory jurisdiction conferred upon justices of the peace under the Second Charter have been referred to. A few Record entries re- late to the jurisdiction of two justices of the peace, also referred to.
Whitmore indicates that Pynchon continued as justice of the peace until omitted from the June 29, 1702 commission of the peace issued by Governor Dudley. However, the Council minutes for June 29th reveal that Dudley appointed all members of the Council to be justices of the peace in each county and that Pynchon was also named a judge of the Inferior Court of Common Pleas for Hamp- shire.40 Further, the records of the Court of General Sessions of the Peace for Hampshire contain a July 21, 1702 entry of the reading of a commission empowering John Pynchon, among others, as a justice of the peace and of the justices being sworn according to law. Pyn- chon also sat at the September 1, 1702 Court of General Sessions of the Peace held at Springfield, but the last judicial entry in the Rec- ord was made January 9, 1701/2.41
40 CSP, Col. 1702, #679.
41 Hamp. Rec. Ct. Pleas 141, 147; Rec. 254
VII. Criminal Jurisdiction
M. OST of the laws of the various American colonies are readily available in printed form; most of the court records are still in manuscript form and difficult of access. As a consequence, some historians of the colonial period have tended to describe law enforce- ment solely or largely on the basis of an examination of printed laws and legislative records. The results are at times misleading. In the two preceding sections the jurisdiction conferred by the printed laws upon the various courts at Springfield was set forth. In this section the Record is examined against such statutory background to determine, compare, and evaluate the jurisdiction actually exercised from time to time by the several courts at Springfield. This jurisdic- tion may be conveniently grouped into the following: sexual offenses, other moral offenses, offenses against the peace, offenses against prop- erty, contempts of authority, defamation, neglect of duties, offenses against licensing laws, offenses involving Indians, and violations of town orders. The latter were not in a strict sense criminal offenses, but are treated here for convenience of presentation.
SEXUAL OFFENSES
A 1642 law, embodied in the later printed laws, provided that if any man committed fornication with a single woman, they should be punished by enjoinment to marriage, fine, or corporal punish- ment or any or all of such punishments as the judges should appoint, most agreeable to the word of God. Under later commonwealth laws the measure of punishment was to be "as the Judges of the Court that hath Cognizance of the Cause shall appoint." 1 A 1649 law pro- vided that no person should, directly or indirectly, draw away the affections of any maid under pretense of marriage before he had ob- tained permission from her parents or governors, or, in their absence, from the nearest magistrate, under penalty of forfeiting five pounds
1 Laws and Liberties Mass. 23; Col. Laws Mass., 1660 153; Col. Laws Mass., 1672 54.
104
INTRODUCTION
for the first offense, with more severe penalties for subsequent of- fenses. It was not until 1668 that the laws provided that a person found the father of a bastard should have the care and charge of maintaining such child.2
While the operation of these laws in a few instances may be ob- served in the Record, the first matter involving a sexual offense ante- dated the laws and was apparently decided by William Pynchon in his discretion, guided perhaps by the practice of the Court of As- sistants. In one of the earliest cases in the Record Pynchon ordered that John Hobell be whipped by the constable for getting promises of marriage from Abigail Burt, despite her father's prohibition, and for offering and attempting fornication with her. Abigail was like- wise ordered whipped.3 What crime she was regarded as having com- mitted is not clear, unless it was participation in unchaste or unclean behavior.
Only two other fornication cases appear in the Record. The March 1654/5 case involving Samuel Wright, Jr. is significant in that a jury of twelve was used to try a paternity charge, that Wright was ordered to make certain payments toward the maintenance of the child, and that Mary Burt, who made the charge, was ordered whipped twice-for fornication with Wright and with Joseph Bond.4 In the February 1670/1 case, Richard Barnard was discharged from prison so he could marry Sarah Clark and then bound over to appear at the next County Court where the offenders were fined forty shill- ings apiece.5 The supplemental material from the Registry of Pro- bate records shows that the commissioners, in September 1661, con- cluded, from the date of birth of their child, that Samuel Terry and his wife "did abuse one another before marriage" and accepted a four-pound fine in lieu of punishment of ten lashes apiece.6 This offense was frequently punished on the county level by the courts of the Bay.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.