NOT SO PETTY CRIMES

The man was not Born of Mankind, whose Family has no Blemishes akin unto it ~ Cotton Mather

she said no, or did she?

One night in July of 1676, Dinah Knight saw her cousin's bonnet lying in the road. She feared "the Indians had taken heir." Then she heard voices in the bushes. "Benjam let me alon," and "this be a sin to you and me to and a disgrace to us both as long as we live." Dinah heard another voice reply that it would be "no disgrac to him."

That was the beginning of a rape case in Woburn that came to involve eight families as it wended its way through the court system. The two in the bushes were eighteen-year-old Elizabeth Pierce and our uncle Benjamin Symonds, 24 (9U).

It's possible that Elizabeth would never have said anything about the "incident" had her cousin not heard the exchange. But wagging mouths were the norm in Puritan America and if Dinah spoke before Elizabeth, it could get ugly for the Pierces.

On 7 Jul 1676, Elizabeth went with her father and Dinah Knight to Cambridge to enter a complaint:

"hee came to mee and layed hould of mee I strove to get out of his hands but hee being stronger then I halled mee into the bushes and threw mee downe...I resisted as much as I Could: but hee being stronger then I forced me and did the acte to mee."

Three days later a warrant was issued for midwives to examine Elizabeth.

Benjamin denied the charge. However, due the the serious nature of the crime, he was put in jail for a time. As his father, William Symonds (9GGF), had died four years before, Benjamin's widowed mother, Judith (9GGM), petitioned the court to “consider me in my afflition” and release him because she was “growon adged very week” and "benjamin was her chief help." He was released on bond paid by three of his brothers-in-law. One of them was our grandfather John Heywood (8GGF) who married Benjamin's sister Sarah Symonds Heywood (8GGM). The other two were also brothers-in-law of Benjamin.

Family and friends became involved in every step of the "due process" that followed. Town dynamics played a large part in the outcome of the hearings. The Symonds had close ties with the Wymans and Johnsons, two of the most powerful families in Woburn. The Pierces did not have powerful friends. Their case depended on the testimony of Elizabeth and her cousin Dinah. Therefore, Benjamin's chief defense was the to attack their credibility.

All the preliminary testimony was given in Cambridge in July. However, due to the gravity of the case, Elizabeth and Benjamin were summoned with their entourages to the High Court in Boston. In September, both factions gave testimony before twelve magistrates of the Court of Assistants. At the Boston court, Elizabeth, her parents and Dinah gave the same testimony as before with a little more detail but Benjamin's witnesses came out in full force.

Benjamin's sisters, Sarah Heywood (9GGM), Judith Symonds Barker (10A) and Mary Symonds Chandler (10A) testified that Elizabeth’s father had complained to them about his niece Dinah Knight. According to these women, Robert Pierce had told them that Dinah “was such a most terre[ble] lying girle that he could not know how to live by her” and that he thought “he must remove his habitation nearly because of that lying girle.”

Francis Wyman (1C10x), Elizabeth’s former master and her uncle by marriage also gave testimony. He said that Elizabeth was a “veri ffolesh girle...verie much given to speak fals...” Francis' brother John (1C10x) had been chosen as Benjamin's brother James' (10U) guardian when William Symonds (10FFF) died.

Note: In the Colonies, it was not uncommon for young people to work as servants for their wealthier relatives.

The matrons who examined Elizabeth after the "incident," were Margaret Clark, whose husband and son-in law both gave bond for Benjamin, Rebecca Tidd, the mother of the woman Benjamin was courting and Susannah Johnson, widow of Edward Johnson, who had business associations with the Wymans. The matrons were vague about the results of their examination of Elizabeth's body. More important to them was the fact that "she did not cry out" when the alleged attack took place. They gave testimony about Elizabeth's lack of resistance and even objected to others who contradicted them. They believed that the sexual intercourse had taken place, but Elizabeth's resistance was too mild for the encounter to be considered rape.

Note: According to M. Michelle Jarrett Morris, author of Under Household Government: Sex and Family in Puritan Massachusetts, "all the women who brought charges of rape in the late seventeenth century cried out, except for Elizabeth Pierce." Morris cites the case of Mary Toothaker (wife of our ninth uncle) who, when threatened, "countered with her own threat: 'If you do I will make the woods ring." Morris also cites the case of our aunt Ruth Richardson (9A) who was threatened with rape when she was only nine years old. She called out to her aunt (wife of Ezekiel Richardson (10U) who came to her rescue.

The Boston Town House which served as town hall and colonial government seat.

The testimony created a conundrum for the Jury of Magistrates. Had intercourse taken place? Dinah Knight's testimony indicated that it had. Was it consensual or forced intercourse? The magistrates finally decided that the evidence didn't indicate enough resistance on the part of Elizabeth to warrant a rape conviction. But they also believed something had happened. Since whatever Benjamin might be convicted of would now be a lesser charge, the magistrates sent the case back to the lower County Court in Cambridge.

Next stop: The Blue Anchor Tavern in Cambridge which served as the County Court. Here Witnesses for the defendant seemed to come out of the woodwork with their main aim to further discredit Dinah Knight's testimony. All these witnesses were family members and close allies of the Wymans. Elizabeth's faction, much weaker, defended Dinah to the best of their ability. All that remained after this testimony was the verdict.

Last stop: On December 19, the group met at John Long's Tavern in Charlestown. A little more testimony was given and the jury retired to deliberate. However, even before the verdict was made public, Elizabeth's father Robert Pierce learned the outcome from a gossipy townsman. He was outraged to hear that the verdict was in favor of the plaintiff. “In the case between Benjamin Simons and Elizabeth perce wee finde Benjamin Simons not guilty of fornication and for Benjamin Cost of Court.” Robert Pierce wasn't the only one unhappy with that outcome. The Magistrates suggested that the jury reconsider. They reconsidered. Same verdict.

Robert Pierce was livid. He objected strongly to the jury that had been chosen on three counts. First, he protested the choice of John Wyman (1C10) as a juryman because of his ties to the Symonds family. Second, he believed the jury had been illegally chosen, and he was right. It was discovered that, somehow, Benjamin Symonds had gotten possession of the warrant that was supposed to go to the town constables advising them to begin gathering jurymen. By the time the constables received the warrant from Benjamin, it was too late to get enough men to fill the jury. Third, Robert complained that "I doe thinck that the jeury were chosen apurpas for this..." (to vote in favor of Benjamin). He was right again. Because the jury pool was so small, men with bias in favor of the Symonds family were appointed instead of elected. It was a clear case of jury tampering. Robert Pierce succeeded in having two new jury members appointed. But, be careful what you wish for, Robert.

The newly appointed jury found “Ben Simons guilty of wanton dalliancs with sd. Eliz perce tending to uncleannes.” Now that was more to Robert's liking. But, unfortunately, there was a downside: The jury then “considered the scandalous cariage of Benjamin Simons & Elizab. Peirce, in their wanton dalliances together” and sentenced both of them to pay a fine of forty shillings or be whipped ten stripes. In other words, if it ain't rape it's fornication and in that case, both parties are guilty!

That wasn't quite the end of the matter. After the trial, Mary Pierce's mother, met with a judge to tell him about "illicit goings on while in Simonds garrison," with the sole aim of embarrassing the Symonds family. She told the judge that she had "frequentli" seen Mary Tidd sitting in Benjamin's lap, that Ben and Mary "lay together on a bed" and that they "smoked tobacco together."

Perjury, jury tampering, character assassination, vengeful slander. These were just some of the ties that bound families together in Puritan America.

Note: 12 women and girls brought rape charges in New England between 1660 and 1700. Of these twelve, ten were found guilty. Five men were hanged, one sold to the Caribbean and four were jailed. For the two who were found not guilty, one was banished from the colony and the other convicted of lesser charge (this was Benjamin Symonds).

homicide or self-defense?

From the Charlestown Court Records:

Crime: HOM MANSL (Homicide Manslaughter)

Motive: QUARREL / TAVERN / SELF-DEFENSE

Intox?: yes, both

Days to death: 2

HOM: Edward Spaulding, Jr. m. (murdered) Ezabiel Richardson

Weapon: 2 blows with fists that knocked ER to the ground; or knife thrust to head. d. 11/27 Circumstances: near the inn of Nathaniel Hills, innholder. Angry: apparently drinking. a "small matter" started the quarrel. In the company of other friends and relatives.

Inquest: i.d. 11/27: could find no skull fractures, only a small head wound. Blood settled from one shoulder to the other. Some blood issued from the nose and mouth. Ignoramus. No verdict rendered.

A Colonial inn

It must have been a cold night in Chelmsford on 24 Nov 1696. Our Grandpa Nathaniel Hill's (8GGF) inn was probably a welcome sight for men looking to warm up and toss back a few. On that night, a group of men, including our cuz Ezekiel Richardson (2C9x), just might have tossed back a few too many. Outside the inn, a fight ensued and Ezekiel was killed by another man in their party, Edward Spaulding.

A number of eyewitnesses who testified at the trial gave a fairly unified account of what took place that night. According to Thomas Powell, one of the four men who were drinking with Ezekiel and Edward "all were at Mr. Hills in Chelmsford." The problem ensued when Edward Spaulding "went out of the house & mounted his horse to go home. ER (Ezekiel Richardson) asked him to stay. ES (Edward Spaulding) refused, so ER pulled ES from his horse and hit him. ES wanted no fight, but ER took off his coat and started a fight. ES said he would go to the law. ER came again with blows, & ES hit him and decked him."

Another witness to the scene, Nathaniel Hill's (8GGF) son, Jonathan (8U), testified that "being at my father's house where I ought to be, I went out upon occasion..." and saw Ezekiel hit Edward. Edward fell on the ground and Ezekiel "fell upon him. ES (to my apprehension in the defence of his life) being a stronger man turned [ER] over and come upon him saying to him what will you now do but struck not sd Richardson a Blow." When the men got up from the ground, "Samuel Gould being near to him had a Blow given by ER, by his eye, he being vexed said what will you fight with every body" Jonathan Hill (8U) attested to the fact that Samuel Gould did not hit him back because Jonathan took him by the hand "saying dont have a hand in ye Quarrell for you know you were before ye Justices today..."

Thomas Reed who lived nearby, saw Ezekiel "take hold of ES by ye throat & to my remembrance did hold him very hard & did strike him, and I did see ES strike him a Blow or two, I see Ezekiel Richardson fall down upon his face, I also see yt Samuel Goold was by prayed Ezekiell Richardson not to fight & he struck sd Goold a Blow on ye face, but I see not Goold strick or lay hold of him."

None of these witnesses gave clear testimony as to the final blow from Edward Spaulding that supposedly killed Ezekiel Richardson (2C9x). At some point, Ezekiel evidently fell to the ground and, according to Jonathan Hill, Edward Spaulding "called for a witness." Jonathan also said that "no one struck ER after he fell to the ground." That testimony turned out to be important.

A Brawl Outside an Alehouse by Alexander Carse

Ezekiel, badly injured, was carried to John and Lidia Walker's nearby house. They testified that "Ezakell Richardson was brought to our house when we first saw him we cold not perseev any Life in him we gave him sum Cold water he than revived...After a littel time i askt him how he deed see sd he was very full of paine i asked him whare his Cheefe paine was he said all over: his boons ware all brok to peeces. He said thay staimpt upon him & his arms ware boath brooken I lookt upon his armes and straiht them out but cold not perrceev[?] thay ware broikon he said and was full of paine full of paine thare was noboady kneu the misory...mosis parker being preasent and looked upon him and said he was dying we ran to the bedsid[?] and he seemed to die away, we gave him Sum Cold water and he revived again... he said...for anything in this world he wished that Edward Spalding was___[illegible] that might____[illegible] him he all so wished that Mr Clark was at home that he might come & preay with him furder..."

John Clark, probably minister of Chelmsford, testified "that i being often with him to the time of his death I Cold not perceev that he had any use of his limmes to the time of his death..."

Lidia walker testified that "the next morning mosis parker Came to him and asked how he came by his hurt he said thay stamped on me I asked him who stamped on him he said two or three of them...”

A preliminary inquest took place in Charlestown. Thomas Powell testified that Edward Spaulding "did not bear ye least grudg" against Ezekiel Richardson. Edward was "very observable for his quiet and peaceable disposition." Edward Spaulding testified that Ezekiel Richardson (2C9x) "'was very apt' to use force ex: once he was angry with (me) 'for a small mater and he fling his gun after me and hit me upon my back which blowe I felt it sum considerable time after . . . I saw he was a danger man to come near when he was angry.'"

This testimony, coupled with the eyewitness accounts, led to a verdict of ignoramus by the jury. In Colonial America, the word "ignoramus," which in Latin means "we do not know," was used on bills of indictment when the evidence was insufficient to justify prosecution. Edward Spaulding got off scot free.

While it appears that Ezekiel Richardson's troublesome nature might have caused the altercation that led to his death, his injuries suggest that what subsequently took place was far more serious than the testimony indicated. Most probably old grudges came into play when Ezekiel was on the ground and more than one of those men "staimped upon him." One blow to the head did not cause the kind of pain Ezekiel suffered before his death. I think there is ample evidence to indicate a cover-up agreed upon amongst the men present that night. What really happened after Ezekiel Richardson hit the ground a second time? Our uncle Jonathan Hill (8U) was obviously involved in the cover-up. Was he also involved the the final drubbing that led to Ezekiel's death?

Note: In 1615 George Ruggle wrote a satirical play called Ignoramus, which poked fun at certain lawyers of the day. The term that we now use for an ignorant person or a dunce stems directly from that play.