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 13
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
While no entries appear in the Record, the records of the County Court for Hampshire show that John Pynchon, as magistrate, exam- ined and bound over to the County Court a number of others charged with sexual offenses. In practice the severe punishments imposed placed fornication cases outside the ambit of a magistrate. At a Sep- tember 26, 1671 County Court Joshua Barsham, lately of Hatfield,
2 Laws and Liberties Mass. 37; Col. Laws Mass., 1660 172, 257; Col. Laws Mass., 1672 101.
3 Rec. 12. Fornication was punished by the Court of Assistants as were filthy and unchaste behavior and tempting maids to
uncleanliness. 2 Rec. Ct. Assts. Mass. Bay 30, 32, 48, 60, 64-65, 79, 81, 87, 90. 4 Rec. 63-64.
5 Rec. 137-138; 1 Hamp. Cty. Probate Ct. Rec. 126; Pynchon Waste Book for Hampshire 81.
6 1 Hamp. Cty. Probate Ct. Rec. 8.
105
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
having been sent down to Major Pynchon and bound over to answer Ruth Butler's accusation of forcing her, appeared but was allowed costs of court when no accuser appeared. A March 31, 1674 County Court entry reveals that in the previous July Pynchon had examined Hannah Merick who was suspected of being with child by fornica- tion, and, when she confessed that she feared it was so and on oath accused Jonathan Morgan of having knowledge of her body, had bound both over to the September 1673 court at Springfield.7
A few years later William Brooke of Springfield was bound by Pynchon in the sum of twenty pounds that his daughter Patience, be- ing with child out of wedlock, appear at the September 1680 County Court and answer "to her Crime and guilt of that vile sin of forni- cation." The court, being "desirous to shew their detestation of such forbidden and dangerous carnal Lusts and if possible to prevent such like God provoking wayes," adjudged the offender to be whipped with fifteen lashes or else to pay a fine of four pounds to the county treasurer. Thomas Taylor, with two sureties, also gave bond to Pyn- chon in the sum of twenty pounds to appear at the same court and answer what Patience Brooke had to lay to his charge, as well as for his good behavior in the meantime.8
John Riley of Springfield was also bound by Pynchon in the sum of twenty pounds for his daughter Margarite's appearance at the same court "to answer to her foul Crime of Fornication." The court, "being desirous to beare due Testimony against this Growing and provoking sin of whoredom and to restrain the like abhorend prac- tices," ordered the offender forthwith whipped with fifteen lashes and to receive a further fifteen stripes when Pynchon saw cause to have them inflicted or to pay a fine of four pounds to the county. Roco, a Negro, being examined by Major Pynchon, acknowledged to him and later to the court "that he had (upon the said Riley's tempt- ing him) the carnal knowledge of her body" and was sentenced to fifteen lashes or to pay a fine of three pounds.9
At its March 25, 1684 sitting the County Court noted that Thomas Granger and his wife, as well as Esther Spencer, all of South- field, had been presented for fornication, but that the women were in no condition to be brought to court. It therefore ordered the clerk to draw up what the court had considered as to these offences and to send it to Major Pynchon, desiring him to send for the offend- ers, examine them and bind them over to the next court at Spring-
7 Pynchon Waste Book for Hampshire 88, 117.
8 Rec. Cty. Ct. Hamp. 43.
9 Ibid. 43. This may have been the
Roco mentioned in a December 1, 1687 en- try by John Pynchon in the Record (p. 313) : "Roco and Sue my Negroes, Joined in Marriage,"
106
INTRODUCTION
field or otherwise. However, no entry of such examination appears in the Record. At the September 1685 court John Webb of North- ampton, having been bound over by John Pynchon to answer "to his notorious Crime in abusing the little maide Mary Bennet in a Shameful uncleane way," appeared, was convicted and sentenced to twenty lashes, the court being desirous to bear "testimony against such abominable fruits and issues of corrupt nature, and to restraine al other Persons (God affording his restraining Grace) that such or such like woful effects of original Sin in al Persons may not be Com- mitted amongst us to the defiling the Land." At the March 1686 County Court Joseph Ashly, being bound over by John Pynchon "for that he was accused for Commiting fornication by Deborah Miller and with her; which Said Joseph and Deborah upon Examination by the Worshipfull Major John Pynchon Esq. was found guilty of said Sin by their own acknowledgment," was adjudged to pay a fine of six pounds to the county and provide maintenance for the child according to law. Deborah Miller was adjudged to pay a fine of four pounds and clerk's fees.10
Only two fornication cases have been found after the period of the First Charter in which Pynchon bound over offenders. At the September 1686 County Court Richard Waite of Springfield, being bound over by Pynchon to answer for his offense of fornication with the widow Sarah Barnard, appeared with the widow whom he had married in the interim. The court, being "Sensible of the growth and increase of this abominable Sin, and desirous to use all wayes to curb (as God shall Assist) the further breakings out of such provok- ing Sins," adjudged the offenders to be well whipped or to pay a fine of five pounds. At the same court Gregory McGregory and Sarah Kent of Springfield, "being by their own confession upon their ex- amination before the Worshipfull Major Pynchon Esq. (August 19th: 1686) found guilty of defileing one the other by the sin of fornication," appeared. McGregory was adjudged to be whipped with twenty lashes or to pay a three-pound fine, and to give security for the payment of forty pounds maintenance for the child to be born and for his good behavior or to be committed to prison. Sarah Kent was adjudged to be whipped with fifteen lashes or to pay a three- pound fine, but, being near her "time of travel" and this punishment dangerous of execution, a surety was allowed to stand bound for a pe- riod of six weeks to see the fine paid or to deliver her up.11
A few cases concerned what might be termed lewd or lascivious conduct. In July 1650 William Pynchon gave an offender private
10 Rec. Cty. Ct, Hamp. 73, 100-101, 105.
11 Ibid. 109-110, 111-112.
107
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
correction upon report by the watch of lascivious conduct on the Sabbath.12 This is the only case in the Record in which correction was private. In September 1660, the commissioners, exercising the powers of a County Court, imposed a ten-pound fine for "gross Lasciv- ious carriage and misdemeanor toward the wife of John Stebbins." 13 In February 1672/3, following examinations held on three separate days, several persons were fined in modest amounts by Pynchon for their "uncivill Immodest and beastly acting" in a play. In June 1678 a drunken soldier was fined thirty shillings for wicked, lascivious and unclean carriage toward Mary Crowfoot.14 No laws have been found specifically dealing with offenses constituting lewd conduct; in most cases the entries do not spell out the details of the offense. Presum- ably the scope of the crime and the punishment to be imposed re- sided within the discretion of the court. From the early years of set- tlement the Court of Assistants had assumed wide jurisdiction over such offenses.
OTHER MORAL OFFENSES
A 1646 law provided for a forfeiture of ten shillings "if any per- son within this Jurisdiction shall swear rashly or vainly either by the holy Name of God, or any other oath." Later, profane and wicked cursing of any person or creature carried the same penalty.15 How- ever, even before 1646 the Court of Assistants had punished swear- ing and cursing. The offenses of profane swearing or cursing appear several times in the Record. In a February 1640/1 case William Pyn- chon obviously adopted the punishment provided by act of Parlia- ment (21 Jac. 1, c. 20) . In two cases in 1675-76 the offenders, ac- cused of being in drink and swearing "by God," were fined the statutory ten shillings to the county.16 In some instances swearing or cursing was merely one facet of conduct in breach of law and order.17
Under the First Charter willfully making or publishing any lie which was pernicious to the public weal, tended to the injury of any particular person, or was intended to deceive people with false news
12 Rec. 41. Compare the 1675 charge against Robert Hinsdall in the County Court for Hampshire for "Wanton and Lascivious carriage" in which the testi- monies were read to him in private, being "Loathsomely obsceene and exceeding No- cious to any honest heart to heare or Mention." 1 Hamp. Cty. Probate Ct. Rec. 161. See also the examination of witnesses in private by the County Court for Essex when Henry Phelps was bound to answer
for keeping company with his brother's wife. 2 Rec. and Files Quart. Cts. Essex Cty. Mass. 261.
13 1 Hamp. Cty. Probate Ct. Rec. 3. 14 Rec. 144, 166.
15 Laws and Liberties Mass. 45; Col. Laws Mass., 1660 195; Col. Laws Mass., 1672 144-145.
16 Rec. 14, 160, 162.
17 Rec. 165, 177, 199, 209-210; 1 Hamp. Cty. Probate Ct. Rec. 23.
108
INTRODUCTION
or reports was made punishable with a ten-shilling fine for the first offense.18 In only two instances under the First Charter was a fine imposed secundum legum. Apparently no action was taken upon a 1685 complaint of Springfield tithingmen against Mary Towsley for "Notorius lying." 19 Under the Second Charter fines for lying were also imposed in only two instances. The last entry in the Record, the sentencing of a Negress to ten lashes, was based in part on the utterance of some lurid lies.20
In several cases not appearing in the Record, John Pynchon as magistrate bound over to the County Court persons accused of lying among other offenses. An entry at the March 29, 1670 court held at Northampton notes that Robert Williams of Hadley, a former serv- ant, was bound over to the court by John Pynchon in ten-pounds bond and, for want of sureties for his appearance, committed to prison. The ground for this action was the offender's "notorious Lyinge," but he was also suspected of witchcraft. The evidence of witchcraft was not of sufficient force to keep Williams in prison or to warrant sending him to superior authority. However, for his ly- ing, Williams was adjudged to pay a five-pound fine to the county, to be whipped with fifteen stripes, to pay all charges of his imprison- ment, and to stand committed until the court's order was performed.21 This punishment, harsher than that appointed by law, was undoubt- edly influenced by the suspicion of witchcraft.
At the September 24, 1678 County Court, Jane Jackson, a Hadley servant, having been bound over the previous summer by John Pyn- chon to answer "as being guilty of most notorius evils," appeared and by the court's examination, and that of Pynchon, was found guilty of "wretched and vile Contradictions or Lyings" and "vilely guilty of filching or stealing" from her master. The court ordered that she be whipped with twenty lashes and serve her master an ad- ditional six months in recompense for his troubles and expenses about "his misdemeaning Servant." 22
Under the First Charter the General Court in 1653 and 1658 made orders with respect to profaning the Sabbath.23 Enforcement of these orders is reflected in the Record in cases during the period 1654-1685 which cover such diverse violations as not coming to ordi- nances, playing and sporting, laboring, engaging in an affray or dis- turbance, and driving cattle or a laden cart. In one case a charge of idleness against a servant was combined with charges of profaning the Sabbath. In most cases small fines were imposed or the offenders
18 Laws and Liberties Mass. 35; Col. Laws Mass., 1660 171; Col. Laws Mass., 1672 91.
19 Rec. 70, 97-98, 193.
20 Rec. 228, 251, 254.
21 Pynchon Waste Book for Hampshire 69; 1 Hamp. Cty. Probate Ct. Rec. 114.
22 Rec. Cty. Ct. Hamp. 17.
23 Col. Laws Mass., 1660 69; Col. Laws Mass., 1672 132.
109
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
admonished.24 There is no case of a Sabbath violation in the Record after 1685. However, at the March 1691 sitting of the County Court the case of Isaac Morgan of Enfield, presented by the grand jury for unnecessary travel on the Sabbath, was referred to Pynchon to give sentence as the law directed.25 There is no entry in the Record of such sentencing.
One aspect of profanation of the Sabbath consisted of misconduct during sermon time. At one of the earliest courts held by William Pynchon, John Woodcock, the plantation troublemaker, was warned to answer at the next court for his laughing during sermon time and also for his misdemeanor of idleness. However, there is no entry in the Record that he was ever tried for these offenses. In a June 1661 case a five-shilling fine for misbehavior during sermon time was im- posed according to law, the offender having been earlier admonished for the same offense.26 At a court held in March 1671/2 a Northamp- ton inhabitant, summoned before John Pynchon by order of the County Court, was fined ten shillings to the county for his "unseemly and prophane carriage" on the Sabbath at the Northampton meeting house during the time of public ordinances.27 Whether such fine was for a third offense, as provided by the law, does not appear.
A case might concern profanation of the Sabbath, among other offenses. This is true of the February 1670/1 fine imposed on Thomas Stebbing, Jr. for posting the publication of the intended marriage of Richard Barnard and Sarah Clark, referred to above, without con- sent or knowledge of the parties or parents, accompanied "with a foolish and reproachful Rime casting reproch upon the Towne and the Maides in Towne." 28 In view of the "shotgun" circumstances of the marriage Pynchon's finding the offense "very greate" appears unduly sensitive.
Several laws of the commonwealth imposed punishments for al- lowing games at a house of common entertainment or for playing at such games.29 The Record shows fines of from five to twenty shillings being imposed in two instances in 1661-62 for playing cards or com- monly suffering the unlawful game to be played in one's house. One offender acknowledging that card games took place at his house, said that he was willing to have recreation for his wife "to drive away melancholy," and would do anything when his wife was ill "to make her merry." However, his plea of recreational therapy was disre- garded.30
Another instance of less innocent merriment is found in March
24 Rec. 65, 91, 104, 151, 152, 194, 201.
See also 1 Hamp. Cty. Probate Ct. Rec. 8.
25 Rec. Cty. Ct. Hamp. 142.
26 Rec. 5, 93.
27 Rec. 142; Pynchon Waste Book for
Hampshire, 83, 88; 1 Hamp. Cty. Probate Ct. Rec. 127.
28 Rec. 138.
29 Col. Laws Mass., 1660 153.
30 Rec. 97-98, 101.
110
INTRODUCTION
1677/8 when some youths confessed to having played cards in the cel- lar of William King's house in Hatfield at an unseasonable time of night and to have defiled King's loom. One offender was fined for card playing, for being out playing at an unseasonable time of night, and "for being at so Nasty a busyness." He was also to answer for any damage to King's property. The evidence on file against the other offenders was transferred to the Northampton County Court where they were fined, whipped, and ordered to pay charges and to make good the damage suffered by King. One offender, in addition, re- ceived eighteen stripes for fornication.31
OFFENSES AGAINST THE PEACE
The most serious offenses against the peace involved riotous as- semblies, although the commonwealth laws contained no specific pro- visions dealing with riots, routs, or unlawful assemblies. On Febru- ary 16, 1675/6 John Pynchon, sitting at Hadley, imposed fines ranging from five to forty shillings on several persons who, the day previous, had participated in an unlawful and riotous assembly in an attempt to prevent the execution of a sentence upon a delinquent by order of the committee of the militia. Several participants in the riot, unnamed in the Record, were bound over to the County Court. An examination of the March 28, 1676 entries of the County Court re- veals that of those persons bound over by Pynchon, most received five-pound fines.32
At the March 30, 1686 County Court Samuel Kent of Suffield, ap- parently bound over by John Pynchon, appeared to answer "for rais- ing or abetting a Mutinous and Riotous Behaviour at Suffield, and himselfe very much active in such Carriages, besides Several unwor- thy Speeches, as in an high and violent manner, saying, that All Per- sons might vote at the Town Meeting, in Choice of Townsmen and Constables, etc. That the Lawes of this Government Some of them were not worth a Chip, and being present when there was a Tumult and disorder in the Town Meeting, abettinge said non voters and saying they might vote." These offenses the court found "high abu- sive Carriages, tending to breakeing of Order, and in reallity a breach of Law, and greivous violation of his Religious Tye which is upon him" and adjudged that Kent pay a fine of five pounds to the county and witness and other charges.33
At the same sitting Peter Rhoe, another disturber of the peace of
31 Rec. 165-166; Rec. Cty. Ct. Hamp. 8.
82 Rec. 161; 1 Hamp. Cty. Probate Ct.
Rec. 168-169; Pynchon Waste Book for Hampshire 134-136.
33 Rec. Cty. Ct. Hamp. 104.
111
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
Suffield, also bound over to the County Court by John Pynchon, was accused "of approbrious Speeches, and violent Carriages and voteing for Townsmen and Constables in a Publique Towne Meeting, when he hath no Liberty in Law so to doe, to the great disturbance of the Peace and Greife of the Moderator of said Meeting, in so much as he withdrew out of his Place, and said Rhoe was so bold as to Sup- ply and Occupy in his Place, besides an Abettor of an evil Spirit against the Minister of the Place." The court, adjudging Rhoe's con- duct "to be high handed Rebellion, and tending to confusion, and Every Evil thing," sentenced him to pay a fine of five pounds to the county and witness and other charges. David Winchel, bound over by Pynchon, was adjudged to pay a fine of four pounds and witness and other costs for scurrilous speeches reflecting upon the Suffield minister and for pressing at the town meeting for the choice of a constable contrary to the mind of the town. (Winchel figured in an earlier disorder at a Suffield town meeting which is referred to in a March 15, 1681/2 entry in the Record.) Edward Burlison, also bound over, was fined five pounds and court costs for his part in being a disturber and molestor of the peace at the Suffield town meeting.34
A later Suffield matter reflects the disturbed state of the western frontier. An entry at the March 14, 1693/4 sitting of the Court of General or Quarter Sessions of the Peace at Northampton reveals that during the previous winter the constable of Suffield had com- plained to John Pynchon, as justice of the peace, that several persons had "made an Alarum" in the town of Suffield to the great disturb- ance of the people. The constable by summons from Pynchon was authorized to bring these offenders before him or to take security in the amount of five pounds for the delinquents to appear before the next Court of General Sessions of the Peace at Northampton. Secu- rity was given and largely forfeited when the offenders failed to ap- pear at the appointed court at which fines of twenty shillings apiece were imposed and, in addition, twenty-four shillings in charges.35
More numerous were breaches of the peace involving such as- pects as assault and battery, drunkenness, use of abusive language, abusing the watch, and so on. These offenses tended to overlap and appear to have been segregated at times only for the purpose of build- ing up the amount of the fine in aggravated cases. It is not until 1672, however, that the title "Breach of the Peace" is found in the laws. This title provided that any person beating, hurting, or striking any
34 Rec. Cty. Ct. Hamp. 104-105; Rec. 181. Upon complaint of some of the prin- cipal inhabitants of Suffield, the court also declared the town meeting null and void
and of no effect and directed a new meet- ing for the election of selectmen, constable, and other officers.
35 Rec. Cty. Ct. Hamp. 161.
112
INTRODUCTION
other person might be compelled to pay the party struck, as well as a fine to the county at the discretion of the court. Since the circum- stances surrounding each breach of the peace might vary widely, it was left to the court to impose such penalties as in their discretion might seem just, equal, and proportionate to the merit of the of- fense. 36
However, even prior to this law there was manifest in case of breaches of the peace a tendency to award compensatory damages to an injured party, as well as to impose fines of five or ten shillings.37 In an aggravated case the offender might be bound over to the County Court. For example, at the March 1675 County Court James Brown, having been bound over by John Pynchon to answer the complaint of John Graves of Hatfield for breach of the peace in fall- ing upon and beating complainant, was adjudged to be whipped with ten stripes, to pay a three-pound fine to the county and twenty shill- ings as damages to Graves.38
In other cases Pynchon might find the complaint a "squobling business," but nevertheless impose a five-shilling fine for breach of the peace. In a May 1697 entry the offender, having compounded the damages, was fined six shillings and court costs, Pynchon seeing no reason to bind him over to the Sessions, "he being Penitent and very Ingenious also Ingaging watchfulness and good cariage for future." 39
In one case, in July 1679, in which John Pope complained of be- ing abused and struck by Philip Matoone, he tendered an oath that he stood in fear of his life, and craved the peace of Matoone. Pyn- chon ordered Matoone bound in the sum of £10 for his appearance at the next County Court and in the meantime to keep the peace. At the September 1679 County Court Matoone, confessing his fault and promising to carry himself better in the future, was discharged of his bond.40 In another case in 1681 a runaway Negro who stole a knife from Anthony Dorchester and then attempted to draw a cutlass on him was committed to prison to remain there until discharged by authority. The County Court records show his imprisonment but not his discharge. When John Stewart was accused of stabbing John Bliss and endangering his life, the offender was "quickly after the fact done committed to prison" by Pynchon and not bound over to the County Court until Bliss was out of danger.41
Closely akin are cases involving use of abusive language. Although this was not a specified offense under the commonwealth laws, it had
36 Col. Laws Mass., 1672 11.
37 Rec. 83, 89, 147, 172, 177, 199, 232.
38 Pynchon Waste Book for Hampshire
39 Rec. 160, 208, 233.
40 Rec. 170-171; Rec. Cty. Ct. Hamp. 30.
41 Rec. 178-179; Rec. Cty. Ct. Hamp. 52,
132.
126.
113
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
been punished by the Court of Assistants from the early years of set- tlement. In these cases covering the period from 1661 to 1678, pun- ishment ranged from reproves to forty-shilling fines.42
A few cases involved abuse of the watch, another offense not spe- cifically treated in the commonwealth laws, but which was punished by the Court of Assistants and at the county court level. In May 1674 a five-shilling fine for abusing the watch was imposed, although apparently Pynchon considered the conduct of the watch provoca- tive. In August 1690 John Crowfoot and John Buck, participants in a drunken brawl described in considerable detail in the Record, were sentenced to be whipped for abuse of the watch, among other offenses.43
Fines in the amount of ten shillings for drunkenness, as provided in the commonwealth laws, are found scattered through the Rec- ord.44 Except for the bibulous misadventures of Sam Owen in the widow Barnard's house, none of the entries has the colorful detail of the Crowfoot and Buck incident. In one case a fine of three shillings, four pence for being in drink, rather than drunk, was imposed.45 The term "disguised with drink" found frequently in the records of the County Court for Essex, for one, is not used in the Record.
The institution of the pound with the inevitable pound breaches and rescue of cattle or swine going to pound would seem a likely source for breaches of the peace.46 Although the offenses were spe- cifically covered in the commonwealth laws, only two instances in- volving pound rescues are found in the Record-one in 1679, the other in 1687.47 In several cases, after the period of the First Charter, group offenders engaging in foolish or high-spirited actions were let off with admonitions by John Pynchon.48
The task of preservation of the peace encompassed the ordering of family relations. In May 1655, John Stebbins, being bound in the amount of forty pounds to appear and answer the charge of misbe- having toward his aged father was discharged when "there was not found full proofe of such evill carriage." Under the colony laws a disobedient and disorderly child might be punished by whipping,
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.