PETTY CRIMES

And if any pson shall finde himselfe greived with the sentence of any the said Courts, hee may appeale to the nexte greate Quarter Court...

~ law passed by the Boston General Court, 3 Mar 1635

evolution of the Puritan court system

Until 1635, all legal matters not able to be settled by town leaders or the church went to one of four yearly Courts held in Boston, presided over by the Governor, Deputy Governor and eighteen assistants. As populations grew, the necessity for more courts arose. By 1641, the population had increased at such a rate that four quarterly meeting per year couldn't handle the cases and the frequency of court meetings was duly increased.

The first recourse of a citizen with a gripe was, of course, his own system of town government which met in the meeting house. Often, matters not resolved within that governing body were referred to the town church. When the church failed to settle the matter, the next recourse was the County Court. These County Courts "had jurisdiction in civil and criminal cases except in case of divorce and crimes involving life, limb and banishment." For those mores severe cases only the high Court in Boston would suffice.

Judging by the cases compiled in Records and Files of the Quarterly Courts of Essex County Massachusetts, 1636-1656, Vol I, the Puritans seemed to be most fond of drinking to excess and slandering one another. The bulk of the cases tried were for public drunkenness and defamation. Many were petty squabbles over fences and bees and canoes. And how about the case of domestic violence involving Hugh Brown and his wife who was brought to court for "breaking his head and threatening that she would kill him, so that he is even weary of his life, throwing stones at him, causing his face to bleed, calling him beast, and wishing him hanged and that he might never come home. She also annoyed the neighbors." Mrs. Brown was sentenced to be severely whipped.

A New England Court House

community ties

Colonial America was very much a community enterprise. Community came into play in every facet of the colonists lives. Within the confines of a strictly Puritan society, religion and the law were a mixed bag. As neighbor to neighbor conflict resolution moved up the ladder through town councils, the church, county courts and finally the high Court in Boston, more and more townspeople were called as witnesses. Here we present two minor conflicts which illustrate judicial life in small town colonial America.

the curious case of the cow

This cow saga delves a little deeper into the "Puritan inquiry" that took our Grandpa Henry Palmer (10GGF) and uncle Robert Swan (10U) to the Salisbury Quarterly Court. The case takes a few twists and turns through Haverhill, Rowley, and Salisbury as Court officials try to decide just who the dang heifer belongs to. John Williams, Jr. and Robert Swan both swore ownership to the same animal.

The action started in the fall of 1653 when Nehemiah Abbott found a stray heifer which he drove back into the common field. Robert Swan (10U), claiming ownership, hired Abbott to bring the heifer to his house. Enter John Williams who, hearing about the stray, also claimed ownership.

Note: The common field was overseen by Robert (10GGF) and John (11U) Haseltine and William Wildes who was master to one of Robert Swan's key witnesses. John and Robert Haseltine were first cousins of Robert Swan and would take part in the squabble.

In November of 1653, inquiries about the heifer began in the towns of Haverhill and Rowley. This was the lowest level of inquiry and a number of witnesses were found who could testify for either party. Those inquiries left matters at a stalemate. Three months later, nothing was resolved but the cow appeared to be in John Williams' possession.

On 11 Feb 1654, Robert Swan filed a complaint against John Williams for "detaining" his heifer. Since the town of Haverhill had been unable to mediate between the two men, the case was sent to the county court in Salisbury. And so began a court battle that lasted almost a year, involved 26 witnesses and led to two defamation suits.

Robert had 6 deponents that testified the heifer was his. The important ones are these:

1) Francis Swan (10A) (Robert's sister) deposed that she could tell by the marks that the heifer was Swan's.

2) Robert Ames testified that he knew the heifer and that she had been taken to Robert Swan by Nehemiah Abbott.

3) Abraham Whittaker testified that the heifer was Robert's.

John Williams had 8 deponents that testified that the heifer was his.

Robert Ames, an indentured servant, was a key witness for Robert Swan. His testimony was further strengthened by Nehemiah Abbot who testified that "Ames agreed without any urging to swear that the heifer was Swan's." Robert's sister, Francis Swan and Abraham Whittaker also testified that the heifer was Robert's. By May, the Salisbury Court had come to a decision, finding in favor of Uncle Robert.

That's when the cow poop hit the fan. Many of the Haverhill townspeople were up in arms. Eight men sent a paper to court objecting to the testimony given by "the boy robert ames...this boy we think could not: nor was fit to be a witnes..." George Corley remarked that if he were John Williams, he would have the case tried again. Grandpa Henry Palmer (10GGF) told Robert Swan "it should be tried again if he had to pay half the cost of it himself." And, if that wasn't bad enough, three of Swan's six witnesses flip-flopped, evidently feeling remorse over their prior testimony.

The first to fold was Abraham Whittaker. His remarks about the case led to a defamation suit by Uncle Robert. In a new hearing for the case held in October, 1654, Abraham was asked if he could swear the heifer was Robert Swan's. He answered that "he could not and if anyone so declared, he lied." Whittaker also said that "he was troubled in his mind" about his previous testimony and that he was influenced by Swan as also were Robert Ames and Francis Swan. "I know ye Swan doe goe agst his concience," said Whittaker.

Other defamatory remarks by Whittaker had to do with the poor indentured servant Robert Ames. Whittaker further testified "Robert Swan enticed Robert Ames to swear nothwithstanding his unwillingness..." Uncle Robert evidently told Ames "thou must sweare punctually or else all this will doe me no good..." Then Uncle Robert allegedly bribed poor Robert Ames telling him that he would would go to the General Court and get Ames out of his indenture. Finally, Whittaker testified that "the next morning after Swan had gained his end, he neglected to go with Ames and inveigled Whittaker into swearing falsely, etc..."

The next witness to flop was Robert's own sister, Frances Swan (10A). Thomas Eaton deposed that he heard Frances Swan say that due to the "largenes of the oth (oath)" she was unwilling to testify but her brother told her she could 'safely do it.'" In the end, she testified that her brother "inveigled her into swearing that the heifer was his and that Whittaker told her Swan inveigled him also."

The pressure finally got to indentured servant Robert Ames as well. From his signed confession: "...Swan went to him many times and asked him to testify for him that the heifer was Swan's...once on a Sabbath day, once at town meeting in Haverill, and again when he had been at Goodman Palmer's..." Ames put him off as long as he could but finally capitulated and agreed to testify.

The most vocal with his criticism, however was our Grandpa Henry Palmer (10GGF). His remarks around town got him slapped with a defamation suit as well:

Dated 26 Sep 1654: Writ: "Robert Swan v. Henry Palmer, defamation, for saying that the plaintiff had gone very sinfully to work in getting the heifer...also for saying that he would not have done so for all the cattle in Haverhill, Hampton, Salisbury and Rowly, and that said Swan should have considered that his deponent, Robert Ames, had a soul to save...also for defaming him before twenty men at one time by saying that Swan sinned...and upon being asked if he had dealt with Swan in a church way, he answered that he did not need to, for it was a public offence in the court."

Our grandfather Robert Hasseltyne (10GGF) deposed in favor of his cousin Robert Swan. He testified about remarks from Henry Palmer who said that "Swan would have been convicted if deponent (Robert Haseltine) had not spoken in his behalf; and that Palmer further said 'he yt justifies the wicked and condemnes the just both are abomination to the Lord.' Haseltine replied 'doe not acount a man wicked till you Pve (prove) him soe.'"

In spite of all this hue and cry, it appears that the Salisbury Court ruling of May stood. I can find no records showing that John Williams filed a new case, so probably Robert Swan retained ownership of the cute little heifer.

There you have it. A petty crime, indeed, in more ways than one. By 21 Dec 1654, a year and one month after the case was first filed, it was all over. As to Henry Palmer's defamation case, we saw in our prior post that the Council did not fine him, just admonished: "...although there was too great appearance of much iniquity on Goodman Swans part...Goodman Palmer charging of Goodman Swan with Sin (especially of this nature) was not without Sin."

Time frame: November 1653 to December 1654.

The three suits filed by Robert Swan:

John Williams heifer case: 11 witnesses, among them Richard Swan (10GGF), Frances Swan, (10A), John (11U) and Joane Haseltine, Cost: 2 lbs 3s 2d

Abraham Whitaker defamation case: 6 witnesses, among them Frances Swan (10A), Cost: 1li. 13s. 5d

Henry Palmer (10GGF) defamation case: 9 witnesses, among them two of our grandfathers, Robert Haseltine (10GGF) and Richard Swan (10GGF) Cost : 2li. 7s. 8d.

the case of the wandering eye and loose mouth

Well, she was just seventeen and still unmarried when our grandmother Elizabeth Holmes (8GGM) entered a complaint against our uncle Thomas Longhorne (11U) (no relation between them) for uttering "filthy speeches, corrupt comunicaccon, & wanton conversaccon" to her in what appears to be an attempt "sweet talk" her into his arms. According to Elizabeth, Thomas also said that 'Hee would teach m[e] How to ly (lie) with my husband." Thomas' next statements were an obvious attempt to rationalize his behavior. He went on to say that "the Scriptr gave more liber(ty) to maried men than to maried women." And he obviously knew the law. He was right when he told Elizabeth that "If a maried man comitt the act with a mayd its not death but whipping, but if a maried woman with a man its death."

Thomas and Elizabeth lived in Cambridge and it appears their case was settled at the town level. I can find no record of Thomas' transgression in the County Quarterly Courts.

But, too bad for Thomas. Though he wasn't able to convince Elizabeth to "comitt the act," still, for his loose talk, he was duly whipped.

According to the record below, the "cariage" happened in 1661. The case was filed in 1662. Thomas confessed in 1663. He was duly whipped in 1663.

Note: The term "carriage" in colonial courts referred to bad behavior, usually of a sexual nature.

As it turns out, Thomas' indiscretion with Elizabeth Holmes wasn't his only offense. His infamy landed him in a book by M. Michelle Jarrett Morris titled Under Household Government: Sex and Family in Puritan Massachusetts. She wrote about Thomas' dealings with Elizabeth Holmes and further about his dealings with Hannah Stevenson six years later. Morris writes about an encounter with Hannah and a young man in Longhorne's field. Uncle Thomas obviously saw them in his field and scurried over to intervene. Thomas took Hannah by the hand and "led hir away..." from the young man, presumably to save her from sin. According to Morris "Hannah Stevenson’s description of their encounter as a lecherous old man chasing away a younger man so that 'he could mak a little sport with her' is more probable." Hannah told Thomas that she thought "it was a shame for him that had a wife of his his own to play with girles." Uncle Thomas' answer? He told Hannah that 'though he had (a wife), yet he might play with girles there was no harm in that..."

final word

The court records for Colonial America are jam-packed with cases very similar to the two just written about. More often than not, these lawsuits transformed into major village events. With everyone in town getting into the act, rampant loose-wagging tongues only served to fuel the flames. When the cases ended, however, it appears that life continued as normal with few hard feelings.

Colonial court cases offer an excellent window into the day to day life of early American colonists. And, in reading through a few pages of the court records, we find that one thing hasn't changed from then until now. The fines and punishment meted out depend much more on one's standing in the community than on the actual transgression.