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 14
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
42 1 Hamp. Cty. Probate Ct. Rec. 8; Rec. 135, 162; Rec. Cty. Ct. Hamp. 5. Cf. Rec. 164.
43 Rec. 153, 209-210. See also Rec. Cty. Ct. Hamp. 127 for the interrogation of Buck by the County Court leading to a confession that the liquor consumed was purchased from an unlicensed seller. For cases in the Court of Assistants see 2 Rec. Ct. Assts. Mass. Bay 133, 135.
44 Rec. 91, 102, 163, 166, 167, 172, 194-
195. For the statutory provisions see Col. Laws Mass., 1660 163-164; Col. Laws Mass., 1672 80.
45 Rec. 162.
46 For the governing statutory provi- sions see Laws and Liberties Mass. 44-45; Col. Laws Mass., 1660 66; Col. Laws Mass., 1672 125.
47 Rec. 169, 203. Cf. the civil action at Rec. 204.
.48 Rec. 200, 216-217, 225.
114
INTRODUCTION
not exceeding ten stripes, or bound over to the County Court.49 In March 1655/6 Joane Miller, upon complaint by her husband of very evil behavior toward him, was adjudged to receive as many stripes as the commissioners saw cause to inflict. However, because of her ear- nest protestations of better carriage, the punishment was remitted in favor of a sentence that for the least miscarriage to her husband in the future she was to receive a good whipping well laid on. Actually, there was no express penalty for the offense in the commonwealth laws. Some ten years later, in August 1665, Miller and his wife were bound over to the County Court by Pynchon, "haveing had Sad bick- eringe and Strife between themselves." Upon their appearance they owned they had not carried it well with each other formerly but as- serted that, since being bound for their appearance, they had lived in peace and quietness. After being admonished by the court they were released of their bond upon promises of better carriage.50
On March 25, 1684 the County Court noted that John Hodge of Suffield, presented at the last Springfield court for beating his wife and wasting his time and estate in drinking, had not appeared, al- though summoned. The clerk was accordingly ordered to inform John Pynchon in writing how the case stood and to desire him to send for the offender, examine him and bind him over to the next court at Springfield or otherwise.51 The Record, however, contains no entry as to any such action by Pynchon. In October 1673 Goodwife Hunter, accused of railing and scolding, was sentenced to be gagged or to be set in a ducking stool and dipped in the water as the law provided-a 1672 enactment providing the first express punishment for scolds. When she failed to elect her punishment, Pynchon ordered her gagged and to stand in the open street for a half hour.52
OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY
The Record reflects the fact that, although burglary and the more serious cases of theft were handled on the County Court or General Sessions of the Peace level, petty pilfering was handled by the courts at Springfield.
At the March 1672 sitting of the County Court, Philip Barsham of Hatfield, having been sent down to John Pynchon upon a charge of theft and bound over, appeared and was fined forty shillings or to
49 Rec. 69; Col. Laws Mass., 1672 27.
50 Rec. 71; Pynchon Waste Book for Hampshire 31; 1 Hamp. Cty. Probate Ct. Rec. 66.
51 Rec. Cty. Ct. Hamp. 73. The laws provided that a man striking his wife, or
vice versa, might be fined not exceeding £10 or such corporal punishment as the County Court should determine. Col. Laws Mass., 1672 101.
52 Rec. 148. For the 1672 law see Col. Laws Mass., 1672 206.
115
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
be whipped with fifteen stripes. In addition, he was to pay Eleazir Frary three pounds and costs of court as treble damages for the wheat and flour stolen.53 However, there is no entry with respect to this case in the Record. In July 1674 Benjamin Allyn of Hatfield and James Brown were brought before John Pynchon, examined concern- ing their breaking into a house at night and stealing a barrel of liquor, and bound over to the next County Court where they re- ceived stiff sentences.54 In August 1686 Joseph Deane, brought before John Pynchon for stealing some clothes and money at Hadley, was ordered jailed unless he found two sureties in the sum of twenty pounds for his appearance at the next County Court.55
Among the chronic offenders found in the Record are Michael Towsley and his family. Several offenses by members of this family involving theft were handled by Pynchon but ultimately, in 1691, punishment was imposed on the County Court level.56 A September 1694 incident involved a charge of theft arising out of property taken by way of distress by virtue of the accused's office of clerk of the band at Suffield for a fine taxed for defects in training.57 This case illus- trates the remedy available where extra-judicial distress was re- sorted to.
In April 1697 William Pierce of Suffield was brought before John Pynchon and John Holyoke, sitting as justices of the peace, and found guilty of entering a house and feloniously taking away certain goods. Since Pierce had confessed his crime and restored the goods and the owner had not prosecuted, he was let off with a light sen- tence. In August 1699, John Webb was fined ten shillings by Pyn- chon for theft of a gun, the owner being left to his remedy at law.58
In several cases involving property rights the circumstances were unusual. In November 1653 the commissioners ordered William Brookes "for defrauding sundry persons in withholding from them, and converting to his owne use the goods of severall persons" to make satisfaction in the sum of eighteen pounds, besides restoring the prin- cipal amounting to nine pounds. The entry is obscure but the order appears to rest upon the theory of an award of treble damages. In March 1686 a number of inhabitants of Windsor, Connecticut were brought before Pynchon for gathering candlewood within the town boundaries of Enfield and burning it into tar. After consulting with the committee for Enfield, Pynchon, "to Moderate the Busyness," de-
53 Pynchon Waste Book for Hampshire 93; 1 Hamp. Cty. Probate Ct. Rec. 135.
54 Rec. 155; 1 Hamp. Cty. Probate Ct. Rec. 158; Pynchon Waste Book for Hamp- shire 121.
55 Rec. 200.
56 Rec. 186-187, 192, 212; Rec. Cty. Ct. Hamp. 144.
57 Rec. 222-223. For the authorizing act see 1 Acts and Res. Prov. Mass. Bay 129.
58 Rec. 230-231, 242.
116
INTRODUCTION
clared forfeit one-half the tar seized and returned the other half to the intruders. In January 1700/01, when Josiah Marshfield com- plained that Luke Hitchcock and Joseph Williston had "in a clan- destine way tooke a Deed of Sale of Land" by complainant to them out of the hands of John Holyoke, Pynchon ordered the deed re- turned to Holyoke but not recorded until all parties were in agree- ment.59
Several cases involved the taking of or damage to animals. In one 1679 case Pynchon imposed the statutory ten-shilling penalty for tak- ing another's horse without leave.60 While not mentioned in the Record, a County Court entry for March 28, 1665 shows that Walter Lee was bound over by the Springfield commissioners on suspicion of killing a steer of one Cornish at Woronoco. The court, judging that the evidence was strong against him, ordered that he pay fifty shillings for the steer, plus costs of court.61 At the March 30, 1675 ses- sion of the County Court Joseph Selden was presented for cutting a horse and for uttering a falsehood. Selden not appearing, John Pyn- chon was directed to send for the offender, examine him, and deal with him accordingly. However, the Record contains no record of any action by Pynchon in this matter. In March 1673/4 when a dog killed a sheep, the owner agreed to hang his dog as required by law.62
Several miscellaneous cases involved injury or threat of injury to property rights. A September 27, 1681 County Court entry reveals that Peter Hendricks (Hennix) was bound over by John Pynchon in a bond of thirty pounds to answer with respect to burning a house in Northampton. Although Hendricks did not appear, the court dis- charged him of his bond, since he had been given some latitude as to his appearance and nothing further was chargeable against him.63 Under the First Charter smoking outdoors was prohibited as a fire hazard. In May 1649, following the reading of the printed Laws and Liberties of 1648, several persons were fined ten shillings for taking tobacco out of doors. In March 1652/3, two persons were presented for the same offense. 64
DEFAMATION
From the early years of the colony the Court of Assistants treated defamation or slander as a criminal offense, although not prohibited by any specific law or order. At least one Quarterly Court, that at Sa- lem, followed suit. Perhaps the courts tacitly accepted the view of the
59 Rec. 59, 196-197, 251.
60 Rec. 171. For the law see Col. Laws Mass., 1672 19.
61 Pynchon Waste Book for Hampshire
20; 1 Hamp. Cty. Probate Ct. Rec. 48.
62 Pynchon Waste Book for Hampshire
130; 1 Hamp. Cty. Probate Ct. Rec. 163; Rec. 150.
63 Rec. Cty. Ct. Hamp. 50.
64 Rec. 31, 56. For the law see Laws and Liberties Mass. 50.
117
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
Star Chamber that such offences tended to breach of the peace (12 Coke Rep. 35). In 1641 the General Court ordered (the order ap- pears as follows at the start of the 1672 laws) that "no mans person shall be arrested, restrained, banished, dismembered, nor any wayes punished; no man shall be deprived of his wife or children, no mans goods or estate shall be taken away from him, nor any wayes indam- aged, under colour of Law, or countenance of Authority, unless it be by virtue or equity of some express Law of the Country warranting the same, established by a General Court, and sufficiently published; or in the case of the defect of a Law, in any particular case, by the word of God." On its face the 1641 order appears to exclude any im- plied reception in the colony of the laws of England establishing criminal offenses. However, after 1641, although no express law mak- ing defamation or slander a criminal offense is found, such conduct was still generally regarded as criminal (by the Court of Assistants and the County Courts of Hampshire, Suffolk, Essex, and Norfolk, among others) -whether regarded as such by reason of the word of God or of tendency to breach of the peace does not appear. (It is be- lieved that slander offenses were not regarded as covered by the law against lying; the penalties imposed for slander are not consistent with those provided by law for lying.) As indicated above, this was not peculiar to the offense of defamation; it was also true of such offenses as lascivious conduct, abusive speeches, and certain con- tempts of authority.
How, as a practical matter, the inhabitants of western Massachu- setts received notice of the specific laws and orders of the General Court, prior to receipt of a copy of the printed Laws and Liberties of 1648, is far from clear. There is no indication that any copy in manuscript form of the laws distributed earlier to some of the col- ony towns was made available to Springfield.
The first reference to defamation or slander as a crime in western Massachusetts, as previously noted, is found in a May 29-30, 1649 entry in the Record in which the widow Marshfield complained against Mary Parsons of Springfield for reporting her to be suspected for a witch. Pynchon found that the accused had defamed the good name of the widow Marshfield and sentenced her whipped with twenty lashes, unless she procured payment of three pounds to the widow toward the reparation of her good name. The Record does not show the payment of the money, but, at William Pynchon's later examination of Hugh Parsons on suspicion of witchcraft, payment is revealed in a statement by the widow Marshfield.65 Since not an ex-
65 Rec. 32-33; Drake, Annals of Witch- craft in New England 250-251. For early libel or slander cases before the Court of
Assistants see 2 Rec. Ct. Assts. Mass. Bay 65, 72, 93.
118
INTRODUCTION
press offense by law, the measure of punishment and the scope of the offense were matters of judicial discretion. Presumably the rationale for regarding defamatory statements as criminal offenses was that they tended to provoke breaches of the peace or perhaps that "Truth in Words, as well as in Actions is required of all men." 66
In the next defamation case, in April 1655, John Stiles of Wind- sor complained against John Bennett for defaming his wife in saying she was a "light woman." When Bennett was unable to substantiate the accusation, it was ordered that he be whipped with eight lashes and pay a fine of forty shillings to the complainant. This is consistent with English practice, in criminal proceedings, which permitted a spoken, as opposed to a written, defamatory statement to be justified by proving that it was true. A September 1658 case in which John Elmer complained that Goodwife Hilton had accused him of theft was settled among the parties.67
The other defamation proceedings found in the Record are un- der the Second Charter. The March 1697/8 case involving Abraham Temple was transferred to the Court of General Sessions of the Peace. A week later, a ten-shilling fine was imposed for publishing a false report that Westwood Cooke had given false evidence under oath. An appeal taken to the next Court of General Sessions of the Peace was afterward withdrawn. In December 1698 an offender was discharged when he acknowledged his offense in imputing theft. In October 1701, an accused was convicted of spreading false reports tending to the defamation of particular persons and fined five shill- ings. The sentence of ten lashes for a Negress in January 1701/2 was based in large part upon defamatory statements about members of the Glover family.68 Whether this jurisdiction was exercised under the law providing punishment for lying is not clear.
CONTEMPT OF AUTHORITY
Only one case in the Record involved contempt of the ministry. The punishment inflicted, a five-shilling fine, was far short of that provided in the laws for reviling the office or person of a minister.69 An earlier case involving the same minister was handled at the County Court level. In March 1669 John Matthews of Springfield, having been bound over by John Pynchon to answer for his "ex- ceedinge contemptuous behavior" toward the Reverend Pelatiah Glover, appeared at the County Court, and, the evidence being pro-
66 See the preamble to the law entitled
"Lying." Col. Laws Mass., 1672 91.
67 Rec. 72, 75.
68 Rec. 235-36A, 244, 253-254.
69 Rec. 138. See Col. Laws Mass., 1672 61.
119
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
duced and read, it appeared that his carriage was "very odious and Shamefull" toward Glover "much after the custome of the Quakers." Accordingly, Matthews was sentenced to fifteen stripes and ordered bound in the sum of ten pounds for his good behavior till the Sep- tember court and to pay costs of court.70 While the commonwealth laws extensively regulated the activities of Quakers, this sect did not constitute a law enforcement problem in western Massachusetts.
A September 27, 1692 entry of the Court of General Sessions of the Peace relates that Edward Burlison of Suffield had previously been presented to John Pynchon by the grand juryman for that town for "Scurrilous vile Speeches" against the town's late minister. When Burlison, having been summoned, failed to appear in court, the wit- nesses were sworn and the clerk directed to issue out a special war- rant to the Suffield constable to apprehend Burlison and bring him before Pynchon who was to proceed against him "according to Law for Contempt of Authority and for his Lying and Scandalous Speeches against said Mr. Philips," or to bind him over for his ap- pearance at the next court.71 However, no entry appears with respect to Burlison in the Record.
The punishment imposed upon John Crowfoot was for contempt of the constable among other things. Another offense of this nature is found in December 1670 when Joseph Leonard and Sam Fellows were brought before John Pynchon for their contemptuous behavior toward the constable of Hatfield. Bound over to the County Court, they were fined in substantial amounts for contempt of judicial au- thority, as well as of the constable, and for unlawful trading with the Indians.72 In January 1677/8, James Carver of Hatfield, venting his rage upon the constable for interfering with his attempt to "mis- chief" John Downing, was sentenced to pay fairly substantial fines and charges. Earlier, in 1659, John Matthews, presented for refusal to obey a summons sent by authority and for his "contemptuous and high carriage" toward the process server, who may have been a dep- uty constable, was fined five shillings.73 In two other cases small fines were imposed for contempt of the constable. One, in 1673, involved refusal to go post with a letter to Quabaug; the other, in February 1675/6, refusal to go scouting on horse.74
In a related type of case Stephen Lee was presented by a Westfield tithingman at the Court of General Sessions of the Peace of Septem-
70 Pynchon Waste Book for Hampshire 63; 1 Hamp. Cty. Probate Ct. Rec. 101.
71 Rec. Cty. Ct. Hamp. 159-160.
72 Rec. 137; 1 Hamp. Cty. Probate Ct. Rec. 128; Pynchon Waste Book for Hamp- shire 84.
73 Rec. 83, 164-165.
74 Rec. 146, 160. See also the attitude of John Woodcock toward a warrant to the constable to distrain for damages. Rec. 6.
120
INTRODUCTION
ber 27, 1692, for refusing to listen when reproved for entertaining young persons in his house "to sing and make a rout at unseasonable time of Night, viz. after midnight." The justices agreed that John Pynchon should send for Lee and deal with him according to the merits of the case, but no entry appears in the Record respecting this matter. 75
An entry in the County Court records in March 1665 reveals an instance of punishment for contempt of the Springfield commission- ers. Walter Lee, being presented for profaning the Sabbath at Woro- noco by threshing corn, for calling Isaac Shelden "a member of old nick and a member of the Devill and for his contempt of the author- ity in Springfeild in Saying he thought he might as well beleeve his boy when he Said Springfeild Commissioners threatned him with the Stocks and promised him Some new clothes as the Said Commis- sioners in declaring what his boy Said against him," the court fined him twenty shillings to the county and four shillings, sixpence allow- ance to three witnesses. This was a mild sentence as the laws pro- vided for punishment by "whipping, fine, imprisonment, disfran- chisment or banishment, as the quality or measure of the offense shall deserve." The only case of contempt of court in the Record is found in December 1684 when Obadiah Abbee, strenuously arguing a point of law with John Pynchon, exceeded the proper bounds.76
NEGLECT OF DUTY
Several cases involved neglect of various duties imposed by law. In August 1698 two former constables of Springfield were found guilty of neglecting to collect the town rates committed to their care and fined forty shillings each as provided by law.77 The laws under the First Charter imposed fines up to five shillings upon any person who upon lawful warning refused to watch or ward in person or by some other sufficient to the service. Two cases appearing in the Record involved this situation.78
When William Hunter harbored his daughter, who had unlaw- fully left service, instead of sending her back to her master, he was fined twenty shillings "due by Law to the Country" but sentence was
75 Rec. Cty. Ct. Hamp. 160.
76 Pynchon Waste Book for Hampshire 22; 1 Hamp. Cty. Probate Ct. Rec. 54; Rec. 191. For the applicable law see Col. Laws Mass., 1672 36. See also the admonition by the Reverend Moxon of Henry Gregory for criticizing a jury verdict (Rec. 8) ; the refusal of Francis Ball to pay some wam- pum to an Indian complainant as or-
dered by William Pynchon (ibid. 25) ; and the five-pound fine imposed on Joseph Fellows by the County Court for contempt of John Pynchon and the Hatfield con- stable (1 Hamp. Cty. Probate Ct. Rec. 128) .
77 Rec. 191, 237-239.
78 Rec .. 61, 207; Col. Laws Mass., 1672 154-
121
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
respited until another time.79 However, it is not clear which law was intended by this reference. At the County Court of March 31, 1691, George Granger of Suffield, being presented for neglecting the public worship of God, pleaded his sickness, weakness, and want of clothes. The court ordered that Pynchon send for and admonish him, but no such action appears in the Record.80
VIOLATION OF REGULATORY LAWS
As already noted, the sale of liquors was subject to extensive reg- ulation in Massachusetts Bay in the seventeenth century. A County Court entry of September 26, 1682 records that Thomas Day, being warned, had appeared earlier before Pynchon as magistrate to an- swer for his breach of the law in selling liquors in small quantities without a license. The evidence being read, the Major informed Day that there were three witnesses to his having rum in his house and of- fering it for sale and three witnesses who had bought rum from him and that his breaking of the law was proved by this testimony. Pyn- chon therefore advised Day, a tithingman, to pay five pounds to the county treasurer rather than have the matter brought out further. However, Day replied that he would appeal to the County Court and there be tried by a jury. Pynchon accordingly referred the whole case to the County Court where a jury found Day guilty "if Testi- monys to the same thing though not the same time be valid and Suf- ficient in Law." The court, judging "Such Testimonys valid and Sufficient" and "this course of Lodging and retailing Liquors with- out License ... so Contrary to Laws and the good Intent and End of the Law forbidding such practises," fined Day five pounds and charges.81
In January 1700/1 Josiah Marshfield came before Pynchon and informed against himself for selling strong liquor without a license. At the same time he informed against Joseph Williston and/or his wife for the same offense. The Record is damaged at this point so that the exact disposition of these cases cannot be determined. How- ever, the records of the Court of General Sessions of the Peace indi- cate that both cases were transferred to that court which fined Wil- liston and Marshfield four pounds apiece.82 A December 3, 1700 entry in the same records reveals that Pynchon and John Holyoke, sitting as two justices of the peace, had fined Jonathan Pease of En- field four pounds for selling strong drink without a license but this fine is not entered in the Record.83
79 Rec. 141.
80 Rec. Cty. Ct. Hamp. 138.
81 Ibid. 59, 67.
82 Rec. 248, 253; Hamp. Rec. Ct. Pleas 124-125.
83 Ibid. 103.
122
INTRODUCTION
Several cases involved unauthorized trading with or selling liquor to the Indians. The widow Horton's case in October 1640 involved the sale of her husband's gun to Indians.84 In June 1655 Robert Munro was fined five pounds for selling liquor to the Indians without a license. In the same month the Springfield commissioners issued an "order of restraint" prohibiting Robert Ashley and his wife (who apparently kept the ordinary) from selling wine or strong waters to the Indians without a license. As far as the Record shows, this order was issued without the benefit of any trial or hearing. At the March 1662 sitting of the commissioners at Northampton, with the powers of a County Court, John Sackett was fined forty shillings for selling liquor to the Indians and one hundred pounds for violating the law against trading for furs with the Indians; however, the latter fine was remitted because of weakness of proof.85
While not referred to in the Record, entries in the County Court records for September 1670 show that John Pynchon, upon com- plaint of certain Indians, bound over to the County Court John Westcarr of Hadley and Benjamin Waite of Hatfield for selling liquor to the Indians without a license. Both were found guilty of selling large quantities of liquor to the Indians, Westcarr being fined forty pounds and Waite forty-four, and both appealed to the Court of Assistants. At the appellate level the magistrates and jury dis- agreed; ultimately the fines were remitted in part.86 At the Septem- ber 1671 County Court Samuel Greene, Joseph Butler, and Samuel Martin were fined for trading prohibited goods with the Indians at Pochasick, selling liquors, powder, shot, and lead and buying beaver skins. The entry notes that Butler and Martin had been bound over to the County Court by Major Pynchon in the previous May; how- ever, no entry of such action appears in the Record.87 The unlawful trading activities of Joseph Leonard and Sam Fellows of Hatfield have already been noted.
A September 1681 County Court entry reveals that, complaint having been made to Pynchon that Samuel Ely of Springfield had sold forbidden drink to the Indians, Ely was examined and confessed that he had let the Indians have some cider. The court, taking no- tice of his "Ingenuity" in confessing his offense and desiring to en- courage others to such conduct, let Ely off with an admonishment and advised him "to beware of Such dangerous practices in time to
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.