Chapter XV: Divorce in the American Colonies (1)

[BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE XV.--The most valuable original material
for the history of divorce in Massachusetts during the period of
the first charter is afforded by the decisions of the court of
assistants in the exercise of its primary jurisdiction. These
may be found in Vol. I of the _Colonial Records_, to September
7, 1641; the Barlow _MS. Records of the Court of Assistants_,
October 28, 1641, to March 5, 1643/44; published by Whitmore
in _Bibliographical Sketch of the Laws of the Mass. Colony_
(Boston, 1890); and, after an interval for which the record
is missing, in Noble's _Records of the Court of Assistants_,
March 3, 1673, to March 23, 1691/92 (Boston, 1901). A number
of cases have been found in the _MSS. Early Court Files of
Suffolk_, supplemented by the _MSS. Records of the County Court
of Suffolk_, and the _MSS. Records of the County Court of
Middlesex_. The _Massachusetts Colonial Records_ are, of course,
very important. There is an instructive passage in the first
volume of Hutchinson's _History of Mass._ (Salem, 1795); and
much aid has been given by Whitmore in the work already cited;
Newhall, _Ye Great and General Court_ (Lynn, 1897); Goodwin,
_Pilgrim Republic_ (Boston, 1888); and Cowley, _Our Divorce
Courts_ (Lowell, 1880). The last-named work in part had already
appeared in the _Albany Law Journal_, XX (Albany, 1879). It may
be read in connection with the same writer's _Famous Divorces
of All Ages_ (Lowell, 1878); and his _Browne's Divorce and its
Consequences_ (Lowell, 1877). For the period of the second
charter the divorce record is missing until 1739. Between that
date and 1760 the _Suffolk Files_ already mentioned yield eleven
cases. From 1760 to 1786 there is a continuous and apparently
complete record in a MS. "Divorce" book in the office of the
clerk of the supreme judicial court for Suffolk county.

An interesting petition may be found in the eighth volume of
the _Collections of the New Hampshire Historical Society_; and
in general for all the New England colonies the records and the
various collections of laws mentioned in Bibliographical Note
XII have been used. Durfee, _Gleanings from the Judicial History
of Rhode Island_ (Providence, 1883), and Arnold, _History of
the State of Rhode Island_ (New York, 1874), are also helpful.
Trumbull, _Appeal to the Public_ (New Haven, 1788), gives some
statistics in connection with the alleged laxity of Connecticut
divorce laws; but historically his statements are misleading and
very inaccurate.

In the southern colonies the English divorce laws were in
abeyance, except in case of separate alimony. The meager
materials existing for a "negative" sketch are therefore derived
almost wholly from the judicial decisions. Among these--cited
more fully in the footnotes--the most instructive are: for
Virginia, Fulcher _v._ Fulcher, in 1 Palmer's _Calendar of
Va. State Papers_ (Richmond, 1875), 29; Purcell _v._ Purcell,
4 Hening and Munford's _Reports_ (Richmond, 1854), 506;
and Almond _v._ Almond, 4 Randolph's _Reports_, 662, or 15
_American Decisions_, 781. For Maryland, Galwith _v._ Galwith,
4 Harris and McHenry's _Md. Reports_ (Annapolis, 1818),
477; Farnshill _v._ Murray, 1 Bland's _Reports_, 479, or 18
_American Decisions_, 344; Helms _v._ Franciscus, 2 Bland's
_Reports_, 544, or 20 _American Decisions_, 402; Wallingsford
_v._ Wallingsford, 6 Harris and Johnson's _Reports_, 485;
Macnamara's case, Scott's case, Govane's case, all in 2 Bland's
_Reports_, 566, 568, 570; Crane _v._ Meginnis, 1 Gill and
Johnson's _Ch. Reports_, 468, or 19 _American Decisions_,
237; Wright _v._ Wright's Lessee, 2 _Md. Reports_, 429, or 56
_American Decisions_, 723; and Jamison _v._ Jamison, 4 _Md.
Ch. Reports_, 289, 295. For Georgia see Finch _v._ Finch, 14
_Georgia Reports_, 362; and especially Head _v._ Head, 2 Kelly's
_Reports_, 191.

The _New York Colonial MSS._ preserved in the State Library at
Albany have yielded several documents of importance for the
chapter. Cadwallader Colden, the last governor of the province,
has an instructive passage in his _Letters on Smith's History
of New York: Collections New York Historical Society_, Fund
Series, I, 1868, showing that in the early period divorces were
granted by the royal governors. Various cases and illustrations
have been gleaned from Gerard, _The Old Stadt Huys_; Valentine,
_Manual of the Corporation_; _Records of New Amsterdam_;
Munsell, _Annals of Albany_; _Duke of Yorke's Book of Laws_;
_New Jersey Archives_; O'Callaghan, _Ordinances_; and especially
O'Callaghan and Fernow, _Documents_--all of which have been
described in Bibliographical Note XIV. A number of extracts
from old records have been borrowed from Alice Morse Earle's
excellent book _Colonial Days in Old New York_ (New York,
1896); and among the decisions cited, Chancellor Kent's opinion
in Williamson _v._ Williamson, Johnson's _Chancery Reports_,
488, 491; and that of Chancellor Walworth in Wood _v._ Wood, 2
Paige's _Chancery Reports_, 108, 111, bearing on the validity of
the common law in the province, are of special interest.

The materials for Pennsylvania are furnished by Linn,
_Charter and Laws_; the _Colonial Records of Pennsylvania_;
Bioren, _Laws_ (Philadelphia, 1803); and Gordon, _History of
Pennsylvania_ (Philadelphia, 1829). Lastly, for the entire
group of colonies, Kent, _Commentaries_ (Boston, 1884); Story,
_Commentaries_ (Boston, 1891); and particularly Bishop,
_Marriage, Divorce, and Separation_ (Chicago, 1891), have been
of service.]

I. IN NEW ENGLAND

Under normal conditions civil divorce is the counterpart of civil marriage. Naturally, in the New England colonies the same influences which determined the rise of civil marriage secured also the adoption of a liberal policy respecting divorce. In each case there was a reaction against the forms and abuses of the ancient canonical and ecclesiastical systems; while at the same time the innovations were in a measure sustained by appeal to the Levitical code. Everywhere as a result the ideas of the Reformation Fathers--the general trend of Protestantism--found effective expression in statute and judicial decree. For in most respects throughout New England the broad modern doctrines of the _Reformatio Legum_ of Edward VI.'s commission, though scarcely even now completely victorious in the mother-land, were from the outset put in practice by both Puritan and Separatist. The American legal conception of divorce as pertaining, not to the criminal, but exclusively to the civil jurisdiction, had its birth in the seventeenth century.[947] In all the New England colonies the canonical decree of separation from bed and board was practically, though not entirely, abandoned. On the other hand, a dissolution of the bond of matrimony was freely granted for various causes, such as desertion, cruelty, or breach of the marriage vow; and usually, though not always, the husband and wife were dealt with as equals before the law. These general principles will be illustrated, somewhat in detail, by reference to the history of the particular provinces.

[Footnote 947: On the "divorce suit as civil or criminal" see,
however, BISHOP, _Marriage, Divorce, and Separation_, II, secs.
483-88, pp. 218-20; also KENT, _Commentaries_, 100.]

_a_) _Massachusetts._--For the Bay Colony we have a concise summary from the pen of Governor Hutchinson, who presided in the divorce court for many years. "In matters of divorce," he says, "they left the rules of the canon law out of the question; with respect to some of them, prudently enough. I never heard of a separation, under the first charter, _a mensa et thoro_. Where it is practised, the innocent party often suffers more than the guilty. In general what would have been cause for such a separation in the spiritual courts, was sufficient, with them, for a divorce _a vinculo_. Female adultery was never doubted to have been sufficient cause; but male adultery, after some debate and consultation with the elders, was judged not sufficient. Desertion a year or two, when there was evidence of a determined design not to return, was always good cause; so was cruel usage of the husband. Consanguinity they settled in the same degrees as it is settled in England and in the levitical laws."[948]

[Footnote 948: HUTCHINSON, _Hist. of Mass._, I, 393.]

By the code of 1660 the court of assistants, sitting twice a year, is given authority to hear and determine "all causes of divorce."[949] This is the only extant law on the subject for the period of the first charter. It is, however, almost certain that the assistants in the "quarter courts," or other tribunals, possessed such jurisdiction from the beginning. It is probably intended to be covered by the authority conferred on the quarter courts in 1639;[950] and the evidence of the Halsall case shows that as early as 1656 "the power of divorce doth properly belong" to the court of assistants. From the same case it has been inferred that the code of 1649 may have contained a like provision.[951]

[Footnote 949: WHITMORE, _Col. Laws of Mass._ (1660-72), 36;
(1672-86), 143.]

[Footnote 950: It is ordered "that such of the magistrates as
shall reside in or near Boston, or any 5, 4, or 3 of them, the
Governor or Deputy to be one, shall have power to assemble
together upon the last fifth day of the eighth, eleventh, second,
and fifth month, every year, and then and there to hear and
determine all civil causes whereof the debt or trespass and
damages shall not exceed £20, and all criminal causes _not_
extending to life, or member, or banishment, according to the
course of the Courts of Assistants, and to summon juries out of
the neighboring towns."--_Mass. Col. Rec._, I, 276. In 1648 the
number of such courts was reduced to two: _ibid._, II, 286; III,
175.]

[Footnote 951: In the petition for divorce in the Halsall case
the counsel for the plaintiff says: "But considering the power of
divorce doth properly belong to the Honored Court of assistants
as is expressed in an order of the general Court (May 16, 1656)
& a president ther is for it (namly Mr. freeman sometimes of
Watertowne) & the law admitts it (page 17)."--_MSS. Early Court
Files of Suffolk_, No. 257. From the last phrase (in which he
reads "submitts" for "admitts") WHITMORE thinks it "a reasonable
surmise that this clause stood in the code of 1649, under the
title Courts": _Bibliog. Sketch_, 101, note. The general court,
referring to the same case, declares that it "doth properly
belong" to the court of assistants: _Mass. Col. Rec._, IV, i,
272. COWLEY, _Our Divorce Courts_, 10, mentions the error of
PALFREY, _Hist. of U. S._, II, 17, who says the superior "courts
had jurisdiction in cases of divorce."]

Neither the right of appeal nor the causes or kinds of divorce are defined by the statutes. Information regarding these important points must be sought in the cases themselves. As a result of the failure of positive legislation, there is a lack of precision and harmony in the judicial practice of the entire colonial and provincial eras. For the period 1639-92, as shown in Table I, forty actions for divorce or annulment of marriage have been discovered. Thirty-one of these are mentioned by Newhall, Whitmore, Goodwin, and Cowley, not less than eighteen being found by the latter in the assistants' records for the years 1673-92, since edited by Mr. Noble.[952] The remaining nine cases are here added from further search in the court records and the Suffolk Files. The records of the court of assistants from 1644 to 1673 are missing; else doubtless the list might be considerably enlarged.

[Footnote 952: COWLEY, _Our Divorce Courts_, 28-31; WHITMORE,
_Biog. Sketch_, 99-101, note; NEWHALL, _Ye Great and General
Court_, 380-84; GOODWIN, _Pilgrim Republic_, 596.]

The first case thus far brought to light is that of James Luxford, elsewhere considered. On December 3, 1639, his bigamous marriage was declared void by the "Court of Assistants or Quarter Court;" and very righteously "all that he hath" as a kind of alimony was given to the woman last married and to her children.[953] A similar instance of having two wives was dealt with in November, 1644.[954]

[Footnote 953: _Mass. Col. Rec._, I, 283. For this case and that
of Frier _v._ Richardson see above, chap. xii, p. 159.]

[Footnote 954: Elizabeth Frier _v._ John Richardson: _Records of
Court of Assistants_, 1641-1643/44 (Barlow MS.): published in
WHITMORE, _Bibliog. Sketch_, xlii; also in _Mass. Col. Rec._, II,
86.]

TABLE I

[Transcriber's note: 'Marriage dissolved' has been shortened to 'Mar. dis.' to
conserve space in the following table.]

CASES OF DIVORCE AND ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE IN MASSACHUSETTS, 1639-92

==============================================================================
No.Where Found[955]| Date | Case | Cause | Court | Decree
--+----------------+--------+----------------+----------+-----------+--------+
1|C.R., I, 283 |Dec. 3. |Second wife _v._|Another |Assistants |Marriage|
| | 1639 | Jas. Luxford | wife | | void |
2|W., 42 |Mar. 5, |Anne _v._ |Desertion,|Assistants |Mar. |
| | 1643/4 | Dennis Clarke | adultery | | dis. |
3|W., 42; |Nov. 13,|Eliz. Frier _v._|Another |Assistants |Marriage|
| C.R., II, 86 | 1644 | J. Richardson | wife | | void |
4|C.R., IV, i, 32 |Oct. 16,|Wm. _v._ |Deser., |General |Mar. |
| | 1650 | Eleanor Palmer |remarriage| court | dis. |
5|C.R., III, 277, |May 26, |Dorothy _v._ |Long |General |Leave |
| IV, i, 89 | 27,1652| Wm. Pester | absence | court |to marry|
6|C.R., III, 350, |May 14, |Dorcas _v._ |Desertion,|General |Mar. |
| IV, i, 190 | 1654 | Jno. Hall | adultery?| court | dis. |
7|Suff. Files, 257|Before |Sam. and Apphia |None given|Assistants |See text|
| | 1656 | Freeman | | | |
8|Suff. Files, 257|1655-59 |Joan _v._ |Adultery |Assists. to|Mar. |
| C.R., IV, i, | | Geo. Halsall | |general ct.|dis.; |
| 272, 380, 401 | | | | |reversed|
| | | | | | on ap. |
9|C.R., I, 85, |June 9, |Petition of Wm. |None given|Co. ct. on |Denied |
| IV, i, 259, 269| 1656 | Clements | | ref. of g.| |
| | | | | ct. | |
10|C.R., IV, i, 282|Oct. 14,|Petition of |Deser., |Co. ct. on |None |
| | 1656 | Mary Batchiler |remarriage| ref. of g.| appears|
| | | | | ct. | |
11|C.R., IV, ii, 8 |May 22, |Rachel _v._ |None given|General |Mar. |
| | 1661 | Jos. Langton | | court | dis. |
12|C.R. IV, ii, 91 |Oct. 21,|Mary _v._ |Deficiency|General |Denied |
| | 1663 | E. White | | court | |
13|Suff. Files, 651|Sept. 9,|Petition of |Deser., |Assistants |Mar. |
| | 1664 | Sarah Helwis |remarriage| | dis. |
14|Suff. Files, 913|Jan. 28,|Christ. and |Adult., |Assists. |None |
| | 1668/9 | Eliz. Lawson | cruelty | from co. | appears|
| | | | of h.; | ct. | |
| | | | bad cond.| | |
| | | | of wife | | |
15|Plym. Rec., |Aug. 3, |James _v._ |Desertion,|General |Mar. |
| v, 33 | 1670 | Eliz. Skiffe | adultery | court | dis. |
16|C.R. IV, |Oct., |Eliz. _v._ |Desertion,|General |Mar. |
| ii, 465 | 1670 | Henry Stevens | adultery?| court | dis. |
17|Suff. Files, |Oct., |Kath. _v._ |Adultery, |Assistants |Mar. |
| 1148; N., 32 | 1672 | Ed. Nailer | cruelty | | dis. |
18|Suff. Files, |Mch. 4, |Mary _v._ |Deser., |Assistants |Mar. |
| 1360; N., 30 | 1674/5 | Wm. Sanders |remarriage| | dis. |
19|Suff. Files, |1673-77 |Hugh and |Disease |Assistants |Sep. |
| 1644; N., 91 | | Mary Drury | and imp. | | b.b.? |
| | | | of h. | | |
21|Suff. Files, |Sept. 9,|Hugh _v._ |Another |Assists.; |Denied |
| 1741; C.R., V, | 1678 | Dorcas March | husband | app. to | on app.|
| 205; N., 127. | | | | g. ct. | |
22|C.R., V, 188 |May 9, |Mary _v._ |Long |General |Leave to|
| | 1678 | Henry Maddox | absence | court | marry |
23|N., 127 |1678 |Hope _v._ |Desertion,|Assistants |Mar. |
| | | Sam. Ambrose | adultery,| | dis. |
| | | |failure to| | |
| | | | provide | | |
24|N., 138 |1678 |Rebeckah _v._ |None given|Assistants |Mar. |
| | | Rich. Cooly | | | dis. |
25|Suff. Files, |Oct. 15,|Mary _v._ |None given|General |Mar. |
| 1807; C.R., V, | 1679 | Aug. Lyndon | | court | dis. |
| 248, 249 | | | | | |
26|N., 144 |1679 |Mary _v._ |Deser., |Assistants |Mar. |
| | | Job Bishop |remarriage| | dis. |
27|N., 147 |1679 |Mary _v._ | |Assistants | |
| | | Jos. White | | | |
28|N., 168 |1680 |Sus. _v._ |Deser., |Assistants |Mar. |
| | | Ed. Goodwin | fail. to | | dis. |
| | | | prov. | | |
29|N., 197 |1681 |Sam. _v._ |Adultery, |Assistants |Mar. |
| | | Mary Holton | desertion| | dis. |
30|N., 200 |1681 |Dorcas _v._ |Deser., |Assistants |Mar. |
| | | Christ. Smith | fail. to | | dis. |
| | | | prov. | | |
31|N., 208 |1681 |Rachel _v._ | |Assistants |Mar. |
| | |Lawrence Clenton| | | dis. |
32|N., 227 |1682 |Eliz. _v._ |Bigamy |Assistants |Mar. |
| | | Robt. Street | | | dis. |
33|N., 229 |1683 |Petition of | |Assistants |Denied |
| | | Ann Perry | | | |
34|N., 240 |1683 |Eliz. _v._ |Incest, |Assistants |Mar. |
| | | Nich. Maning | desertion| | dis. |
35|N., 256, 258 |1684 |Sarah _v._ | |Assistants |Mar. |
| | | Thos. Cooper | | | dis. |
36|Suff. Files, |Sep. 17,|Petition of |Adultery |Assistants |Mar. |
| 2347 | 1685 | Thos. Winsor | | | dis. |
37|N., 326 |1690 |Phillip _v._ |Deser., |Assistants |Mar. |
| | | Hannah Goss |remarriage| | dis. |
38|N., 242 |1690-91 |Mary _v._ |Adultery, |Assistants | |
| | | Sam. Stebbins | desertion| | |
39|N., 361 |1691 |Hannah and |Affinity |Assistants |Marriage|
| | | Josiah Owen | (bro's | | void |
| | | | wife) | | |
40|N., 342 |1690 |Sam. and |Affinity |Assistants |Marriage|
| | | Reb. Newton | (uncle's | | void |
| | | | wid.) | | |
--+----------------+--------+----------------+----------+-----------+--------+

Earlier in the same year "Anne Clarke" was released from her husband Dennis for desertion, "refusing to accompany with hir," and for living in adultery with another woman.[956] The case of Joan and George Halsall, 1655-59, is especially enlightening regarding the early law and procedure in divorce suits. Joan's original petition was presented to the general court, by which, as already noted, the matter was referred to the assistants for "final determination." In a later petition to the last-named tribunal the injured wife complains not only of her husband's "frequent abusing himself with Hester Lug," but "also of his wicked, constant & unsufferable expense" in "mulled sack and otherwise" with another woman of equally bad reputation, humbly asking that she "may be dismissed from her intolerable burden--an uncleane yoake-fellow."[957] The decree of the court is missing, but elsewhere we learn that her prayer was granted.[958] The fact is noteworthy; for seemingly this marriage was dissolved solely for the man's adultery.[959] If so, down to 1776, as will later appear, it is the only known clear exception to the rule mentioned by Governor Hutchinson. The case was, however, not yet ended. Halsall appealed to the general court; and so, on November 12, 1659, after the decree of the assistants had been in force for three years, it was declared void and George was allowed to "have and enjoy the said Joan Halsall, his wife, again."[960]

[Footnote 955: N. = NOBLE'S _Records of the Court of Assistants_,
I; W. = _Record of the Court of Assistants_, in WHITMORE'S
_Bibliog. Sketch_.]

[Footnote 956: _Records of Court of Assistants_, 1641-43 (Barlow
MS.): published in WHITMORE, _op. cit._, xlii.]

[Footnote 957: The two petitions are in the _MSS. Early Court
Files of Suffolk_, No. 257; and the reference of the general
court in _Mass. Col. Rec._, IV, i, 272.]

[Footnote 958: _Mass. Col. Rec._, IV, i, 401.]

[Footnote 959: Of course, the alleged "wicked expense" may
possibly have been admitted as a second ground.]

[Footnote 960: _Mass. Col. Rec._, IV, i, 401. The reason for
Halsall's petition is not stated. Was it, perhaps, that "male
adultery" was not a sufficient ground of divorce?]

Jurisdiction on appeal thus belonged to the general court. This is further shown by the peculir case of Hugh and Dorcas March. In 1678, for "y^e peace & satisfaction" of his conscience, Hugh asked the court of assistants to decide whether he might legally retain Dorcas as his wife, alleging that her former husband was living and hinting that a divorce from him had never been secured. With much parade of law and logic, in a long and vague petition, probably drafted by his attorney, he betrays far more anxiety to get rid of his spouse than to quiet the throes of an outraged conscience. The secret of this is clearly disclosed by Dorcas in the counter-petition, written by her own hand, and proving her to be a better lawyer than her husband's counsel. It seems she had been "for some yeares y^e wife of Benoni Blackleach," with whom she had formerly lived in Connecticut. About nine years before the present action Blackleach "was taken in a crime worthy of death by y^e Law," but he escaped from his captors. Six months thereafter he sent her a letter saying he dared not call her his wife, and subscribing himself her "friend not husband." Later, not knowing for six years whether he was living or dead, Dorcas came to her friends in Massachusetts, bringing with her, on the advice of "y^e honored Gouernor Winthrop," the "testimonys" sworn against her guilty consort. These, together with a petition for the determination of her status, she laid before "y^e honord Court in Boston," Governor Winthrop being present when the case was "agitated." This tribunal adjudged her a "free woman," as "some of y^e honored Magistrates did tell" her.[961] Presently she was solicited in marriage by March, he giving her an "Ingagement vnder his hand of one hundred pounds of y^e best of his estate," promising "y^t he would remove his children from him y^t they might not make any disturbance between" them. Then they were "published," joined in wedlock "by y^e honord Deputy Governor," and thereafter "Lived comfortably." Next we reach the heart of the business. Hugh's children "liveing in y^e familie" did "shamefully slight" her, purloining from her box the said "writing" of a hundred pounds; and their father disowned her as his wife. This conduct, she suggests, is due to a desire to "please his children" rather than to the scruples of a tender conscience. The magistrates were not moved by her plea. According to the record, "It was put ... whither Hugh March & said Dorcas might still lawfully live as man & wife;" and "the Court Resolved it in the Negative."[962] With this decree Hugh was not content. So on October 2, 1678, he prays the general court "to put a full Determination to the case." After a fortnight that body responded by overruling the lower court's decision, and declaring that the "sajd March ought to take the sajd Dorcas & reteyne hir as a wife, and to obserue & fullfill the marriage covenant according to his Engagement."[963]

[Footnote 961: The petition and decree here mentioned are not
in the _Suffolk Files_. Perhaps further search in the _Mass.
Archives_ would bring them to light.]

[Footnote 962: _MSS. Early Court Files of Suffolk_, No. 1741
(Sept. 9).]

[Footnote 963: _Mass. Col. Rec._, V, 205.]

In 1668 a petition to the county court of Suffolk for a "bill of divorce" was referred to the assistants, because it "was not proper to the cognizance" of the former body.[964] On the other hand, in the exercise of its superior authority a case might be sent to the lower court with power to render a final decree. Thus in May, 1656, was so referred "unto County Court of Charlestown" the petition of William Clements of Watertown, "craving a divorce from his wife who for several years hath refused marriage fellowship with him."[965] The lower court proved conservative. Not only was a divorce denied, but the couple were commanded to "own each other according to their marriage covenant," on pain of being "severely punished" for refusal.[966]

[Footnote 964: Case of Christopher and Elizabeth Lawson: _MSS.
Early Court Files of Suffolk_, No. 913. Though the decree in this
case has not been discovered, it is certain that it came before
the assistants; for the papers in the proceedings are marked
"_vera copia_ E[dward] R[awson] S[ec.]". In the Nailer case,
mentioned below, there was similar reference from the county
court to the court of assistants.]

[Footnote 965: _Mass. Col. Rec._, IV, i, 259, 269; _cf._
WHITMORE, _Col. Laws of Mass._ (1660-72), 100, note.]

[Footnote 966: _MSS. Rec. of the County Court of Middlesex_, I,
85. In the same year the case of "Mary Batchiler" was referred
for settlement to the county court of York: _Mass. Col. Rec._,
IV, i, 282.]

The general court was at once the legislature and the supreme judicial tribunal of the colony. In relegating the trial of divorce suits to the court of assistants it by no means surrendered its right to exercise the primary jurisdiction. A number of cases make it almost certain that it entertained and decided such cases in the first instance. William Palmer was so divorced in 1650.[967] Two years later Dorothy Pester, having waited "w^{th} patience tenn yeeres for the retourne of her husband" William, prays "that she might not still be held in such bondage." Whereupon the court mercifully granted her "libertje to marry when God by his providence shall afoord her an Oppertunitje."[968] In the same way in 1654 Dorcas Hall was released on account of the desertion and other misconduct of her spouse.[969] "Rachel Langton, or Verney," was set "free from her late husband, Joseph," in 1661, no cause being assigned.[970] In 1663 the petition of Margaret Bennet in behalf of her daughter Mary White was denied.[971] A decree was granted in a peculiar form in 1670. In answer to the petition of Elizabeth Stevens, whose husband had deserted her and been guilty of "familiarity" with another woman, the "Court judgeth it meete to declare, that the petitioners marrying again another man shall not be indangered thereby as a transgression of our lawes."[972] The petition of Mary Maddox in 1678 alleges that her husband Henry had been absent unheard of for "a thirteen yeares." She was accordingly freed from the conjugal bond and put "at liberty to dispose of herself as she shall see meete."[973] Very generous alimony is sometimes allowed the injured woman. On October 15, 1679, because Augustine Lyndon "hath in so many Particulars Broken Covenant," his wife Mary is granted a full divorce, besides being awarded two-thirds of her husband's lands and the "small matter that now Remaineth in Deacon Allen's hands" for the use of herself and children, "till the County Court shall take further Order." The next day, on a second petition, additional property is decreed to the "late wife of Augustine Lyndon now Mary Sanderson," showing apparently that she was permitted to resume her maiden name.[974] The eight[975] divorces just enumerated are all granted by the general court on petitions precisely similar to those regarding other matters dealt with by that body in the first instance. To all intents and purposes they are "legislative" divorces; as much so, in fact, as are those so often sanctioned by the state legislatures during the present century.

[Footnote 967: _Ibid._, 32.]

[Footnote 968: _Ibid._, 89; III, 277.]

[Footnote 969: _Ibid._, III, 350; IV, i, 190.]

[Footnote 970: _Ibid._, IV, ii, 8.]

[Footnote 971: Mary complained of her husband's "deficjency":
_ibid._, IV, ii, 91.]

[Footnote 972: _Ibid._, IV, ii, 465.]

[Footnote 973: _Ibid._, V. 188.]

[Footnote 974: _MSS. Early Court Files of Suffolk_, No. 1807.
This document begins: "At a Generall Court." The case is also in
_Mass. Col. Rec._, V, 248, 249.]

[Footnote 975: The divorce of James Skiffe was also granted "Att
a Generall Court held vpon the Vineyard": _Plym. Col. Rec._, V,
33. See subsection _b_) below.]

The remaining cases mentioned in the table are for the most part very simple and require but little comment here. Two are only known from incidental notice in other records.[976] Four are contained in the _Suffolk Files_.[977] In one of these the divorced husband, who had broken the marriage vow and been guilty of "Inhuman Carriage & Satanic Cruelty" toward his wife and children, was banished ten miles from Boston; and later, when he was permitted to visit that town on business, he was required to give bond "to be on good behavior towards his late wife."[978] It is significant that during the seventeenth century not a single clear case of divorce from bed and board has been discovered in any of the Massachusetts records.[979]

[Footnote 976: These are the cases of Samuel Freeman (before
1656) and Philip Wharton (before 1678). The first is mentioned in
the Halsall case. _Cf._ WHITMORE, _Col. Laws of Mass._ (1660-72),
100, note, who says: "Samuel Freeman had a wife Apphia, and it
has been thought that his widow married Gov. Thomas Prence of
Plymouth. It has now been suggested that she was divorced, and
married a second time while Freeman stayed in England, but this
surmise needs examination." The second case is inferred from
the following: "At a Circuit Court at Boston, Apr. 30, 1678,
Philip Wharton and Mary Gridley, formerly his wife, bound over to
answer for disorderly and offensive cohabiting together, having
sued out a divorce. They owned they lived together. Bonds for
good behavior until next court, especially to refrain from each
other's company."--_MSS. Records of the County Court of Suffolk_,
506. Evidently it was common to resume the maiden name: _cf._ the
Nailer and Lyndon cases.]

[Footnote 977: Cases of Sarah Helwis, Sept. 9, 1664; Katherine
Nailer, 1672; Mary Sanders, March 4, 1674/5; and Thomas Winsor,
Sept. 17, 1685: all in _MSS. Early Court Files of Suffolk_,
Nos. 651, 1148, 1360, 2347. The Sanders case is also in NOBLE'S
_Records of the Court of Assistants_; COWLEY, _Our Divorce
Courts_, 28.]

[Footnote 978: The Nailer case. Two years later (March 11,
1674/5) we learn that "Edward Naylor being Complayned on for
Intruding into his late wiues Katherin Nanny^s Company The Court
on hearing what was lajd to the sajd Naylors charge doe Judge &
declare his bond to be forfeited."--NOBLE'S _Records of Court of
Assistants_, I, 32.]

[Footnote 979: It is just possible that in the case of Mary Drury,
Oct. 10, 1677, the decree is intended as a separation from bed and
board. It is voted "whether the Court [probably the assistants]
would declare it a nullity, past in the negative. Whether they
would be compelled to Cohabit past in y^e Negative."--_MSS. Early
Court Files of Suffolk_, No. 1644. Four years earlier (_ca._
March 5, 1673) the following record appears: "In the case of Hugh
Drury & Mary His Wife The Court after due hearing of the case &
euidences therein produced Doe declare that they Doe enjoine them
both to liue together according to the ordinance of God as man and
wife."--NOBLE'S _Rec. of Court of Assistants_, I, 91.]

During the period of the second charter divorce controversies and all matrimonial questions are to be "heard and determined by the governour and council,"[980] whose decrees may be executed by arresting and committing the "body" of the person disregarding them.[981] By a law of 1641 it had already been provided that the divorced wife, if the innocent party, should retain her right of dower in one-third of the husband's real property for life.[982] A later act makes provision for alimony. The "superior court of judicature" is empowered in case of divorce or nullity to assign the woman "such reasonable part of the estate of her late husband as in their discretion the circumstances of the estate may admit, not exceeding one-third part thereof."[983] As in the earlier period, the causes and kinds of divorce are not determined by legislation; but an act of 1695 declares that the penalty for "polygamy"--at this time death--shall not apply to those who marry when the husband or wife has been absent wilfully or unheard of "by the space of seven years together."[984] Three years later the term of absence is shortened, the law taking the form it sometimes has in the other colonies. It is provided that "if any married person, man or woman, has lately or shall hereafter go to sea in a ship or other vessel bound from one port to another where the passage is usually made in three months' time, and such ship or other vessel has not been or shall not be heard of within the space of three full years ... , or shall only be heard of under such circumstances as may rather confirm the opinion, commonly received, of the whole company's being utterly lost, in every such case the matter being laid before the governour and council, ... the man or woman whose relation is in this manner parted from him or her may be esteemed single and unmarried; and upon such declaration thereof, and license obtained from that board, may lawfully marry again."[985]

[Footnote 980: Nov. 3, 1692: _Acts and Resolves_, I, 61.]

[Footnote 981: Jan. 13, 1755: _ibid._, III, 782.]

[Footnote 982: In WHITMORE, _Col. Laws of Mass._ (1672-85), 42,
the date is given as 1641; but _ibid._ (1660-72), 146, it is
1647.]

[Footnote 983: June 19, 1696: _Acts and Resolves_, I, 209; _cf._
_Acts and Laws, 1692-1765_, 60.]

[Footnote 984: June 6, 1694: _Acts and Resolves_, I, 171, 172.]

[Footnote 985: Dec. 2, 1698: _ibid._, 353, 354.]

After 1692 the legislature does not seem to have interfered in divorce suits either on appeal or in the first instance. In a few cases the county court of general sessions of the peace is found granting separate maintenance. Thus in 1710/11, on petition of Elizabeth Goddard, two men are appointed to examine certain accounts of her husband John, and to "take into their hands for the use of the Petitioner what shall appear to be due to him."[986] In 1725 Dorothy, "the wife of John Jackson of Boston Starchmaker," asks for separate maintenance, alleging that her husband had utterly refused to provide for her support, and that she "would run the hazzard of her life in case she should attempt to Enter into his house." The court orders Jackson to take his wife home, support her according to his ability, "and keep his Majesty's Peace." On refusal, he is required to enter into recognizance in the sum of fifty pounds to make Dorothy a weekly allowance of eight shillings.[987]

[Footnote 986: Jan. 29, 1710/11: _MSS. Records of the Court of
Gen. Sessions of Suffolk_, I, 225.]

[Footnote 987: Apr. 26, 1725: _ibid._, III, 330. For a similar
case, see _ibid._, 311.

In the _MSS. Records of Superior Court of Judicature_, 1725-30,
fol. 284, may be found the following entry: At a court held for
Barnstable and Duke's Cos., Apr. 21, 1730, "Hannah Marshall,
wife of the Rev. Josiah Marshall, complained that she has lived
with him for a considerable time past in daily fear of her life,
threats of being brained, etc. Josiah appeared and made answer.
Hannah admitted to her oath ... Court directed and advised her
to keep at her father's house until further order from the Court
or from the General Sessions. Josiah to find surety for his good
behavior." This is the only case in these records between 1725
and 1780.]

TABLE II

DIVORCE CASES BEFORE THE GOVERNOR AND COUNCIL OF MASSACHUSETTS, 1739-60

(Found in _MSS. Files of Suffolk County_, Vol. DCCXCIII)

========================================================================
No.| No. of | Date | Case | Cause | Decree | Hus. |Years
| File | | | | |Occupation| Mar.
---+---------+--------+-------------+----------+--------+---------+-----
1 |.29726 |27-12-38|Gill _v._ |Coer. to | |Yeoman |
| | | Mary Belchar| mar. | | |
2 |.29727 |24- 6-40|Jesse _v._ |Incapacity|M. void |Farmer | 5
| | | Grace Turner| | | |
3 |.29728 |27- 4-44|Eliz. _v._ |Incapacity| |Carp't'r | 11
| | | Jos. Bredeen| | | |
4 |.29729 | 5-12-52|G. _v._ |Adultery |M. diss.| Husb'n |
| | | M. Rainer | | | |
| | | [Raymond] | | | |
5 |.29730 |13- 6-51|Eliz. _v._ |Bigamy |M. void | | 1
| | | Ezekiel | | | |
| | | Eldridge | | | |
6 |.29730 |26-12-52|Susanna _v._ |Deser., |M. diss.| | 8
| | | Ezek. | remar. | | |
| | | Eldridge | | | |
7 |.29731 |20- 2-53|Ben. _v._ |Adult., |M. diss.| |
| | | Jemima Green| bast. | | |
8 |.29732 | 9- 4-54|Petition of |5 yrs. |Lv. tom.|Mariner |
| | | Hannah Wood | absence | | |
9 |.29733_a_| 1-11-54|Mary _v._ |Adult., |Sep. |Gent. |
| | | Wm. Clapham| bast. | b. b. | |
10 |.29733_b_| -12-54|Mary _v._ |Cr'l., |Sep. |Gent. | 13
| | | Geo. Arthur | was. est.| b. b. | |
11 |.29734 | - -57|Dan _v._ |Adultery | |Mariner |
| | | May McCarthy| | | |
---+---------+--------+-------------+----------+--------+---------+-----

The history of divorce legislation is a complete blank for nearly half a century under the provincial charter. Between 1692 and 1739 the record of the governor and council in such suits is entirely missing. For the next twenty-one years, 1739-60, eleven cases have been gathered from the court files (Table II); while during the following twenty-six years, 1760-86, a continuous and apparently complete record, showing ninety-six cases, is contained in a manuscript volume preserved in the office of the clerk of the supreme judicial court for Suffolk county (Table III).

TABLE III

DIVORCE CASES BEFORE THE GOVERNOR AND COUNCIL, OR THE COUNCIL, OF MASSACHUSETTS, 1760-86

(From MS. Book of "Divorces" in Office of Clerk of Supreme Judicial Court, Suffolk County)

[Transcriber's note:
Key:
A = Adultery
C = Cruelty
I = Incapacity
W = Another Wife
Marriage Dissolved condensed to Mar. dis.]

==============================================================================
| | DATE OF| | CAUSE | | |
NO.PAGE| DECREE | CASE [988] +-+--------------+ DECREE |HUSBAND'S |YEARS
| | | |Charge| | |OCCUPATION|MAR-
| | | | |Specifications| | |RIED
--+----+--------+------------------+-+--------------+--------+----------+-----
1| 1 |22- 4-60|Wm. _v._ | |Adultery, |Mar. |Soldier | 3
| | | Eleanor Arbuthnot| | elopement |dis. | [officer]|
2| 2 | 9- 6-60|Henrietta _v._ | |Bigamy, |Deferred| |
| | | Hugh Cane | | desertion, | | |
| | | | | cruelty | | |
3| 4 |10- 6-60| Jane _v._ | |Adultery, |Mar. | | ¾
| | | Joshua Eustis | | desertion |dis. | |
4| 5 | 5- 6-60|Petition of | |Five years' |Leave to|Mariner |
| | | Eunice Coffin | | absence | marry | |
5| 6 | 8-10-60|Mary _v._ | |Cruelty |Accomm- |Truckman |12
| | | Rich. Hunt | | |odated | |
5| 7 |14- 2-61|Mary _v._ | |Cruelty, |Separate| |
a| | | Rich. Hunt | | failure to |b. b. | |
| | | | | provide |[988] | |
6| 11 |11- 3-61|Stephen _v._ | |Adultery, |Mar. |Mariner | 6
| | | Tabitha Lufkin | |wasting estate|dis.[988] |
7| 15 |21- 4-62|Petition of | |Four years' |Leave to|Mariner |
| | | Ruth Woodberry | | absence | marry | |
8| 16 |29- 7-62|Wm. _v._ | |Bigamy |Marriage|Gardener | 4
| | | Hannah Davidson | | | void | |
9| 18 |14- 2-63|Ed. _v._ | |Adultery |Mar. |Husbandman| 8
| | | Rebecca Holman | | |dis.[988] |
10| 21 |13- 7-63|James _v._ | |Adultery, |Mar. | | 8
| | | Mary Torrey | | elopement |dis.[988] |
11| 24 |15- 2-64|Eliz. _v._ | |Cruelty, |Separate| | 2
| | | Mark Keith | | refuses bed | b. b. | |
12| 27 | 7-11-64|Elias _v._ | |Adultery, |Mar. |Soldier | 9
| | | Bethia Parmenter | | bastard |dis.[988]|[captive]|
13| 29 |10- 4-65|Ben. _v._ | |Adultery |Mar. |Mariner |
| | | Lydia Ingersoll | | |dis.[988] |
14| 32 |20- 6-65|Margaret _v._ | |Cruelty |Dismissed Yeoman |
| | | Fred Knodle | | | | |
15| 33 |14- 8-65|Rachel _v._ | |Bigamy |Marriage| | 8
| | | John Wormley | | |void[988] |
16| 35 |24- 9-66|Russell _v._ | |Adultery |Mar. |Cooper |14
| | | Mary Knight | | | diss. | |
17| 37 | 6- 5-67|Thos. _v._ | |Adultery |Mar. |Yeoman |17
| | | Abigail Hammet | | | diss. | |
18| 40 |16-12-67|Mary _v._ | |Cruelty, |Separate|Trader |13
| | | Jno. Fairservice | | adult., att. | b. b. | |
| | | | | to poison | | |
19| 44 | 5- 2-68|Ann _v._ | |Desertion, |Separate| |
| | | Cornelius Vansise| | failure to | b. b. | |
| | | | | provide | | |
20| 45 |15- 6-68|Jas. _v._ | |Adultery |Mar. |Trader |11
| | | Mary Dougherty | | |dis.[988] |
21| 48 |14- 9-68|Lucy _v._ | |Cruel., sells |Separate|Truckman |7
| | | Scipio Purnan | | wife, fail. | b. b. | |
| | | | | to prov. | | |
22| 51 |17- 4-70|Jno. _v._ |A|Adultery |Mar. |Cordwainer|17
| | | Anna Bragg | | |dis.[988] |
23| 54 |16-7-70 |Wm. _v._ | |Adultery |Mar. |Mariner |15
| | | Susanna Chambers | | |dis.[988] |
24| 57 |18-10-70|Sam. _v._ | |Bigamy |Marriage|Mariner | 1
| | | Sarah Lefebure | | |void[988] |
25| 59 | 9- 5-71|Mary _v._ | |Bigamy, |Marriage| | 6
| | | Henry Bates | | desertion |void[988] |
26| 62 |19- 9-71|Mehetable _v._ | |Bigamy |Marriage|Mariner[?] 2
| | | Josh. Nicholson | | |void[988] |
27| 64 |23-10-71|Jno. _v._ | |Adultery |Mar. |Ropemaker | 6
| | | Jane Crosley | | |dis.[988] |
28| 66 |28-10-71|Cadwell _v._ | |Adultery, |Mar. |Husbandman| 3
| | | Charlotte Ford | | drunkenness | dis. | |
29| 68 |17-10-71|Abagail _v._ | |Desertion, |Separate|Physician |1½
| | | Jos. Bradstreet | | sequest. | b. b. | |
| | | | | fruits of | | |
| | | | | wife's estate| | |
30| 70 |10-12-72|Jas. _v._ | |Adul., threats|Mar. |Esquire |20
| | | Hannah Richardson| | to life and | dis. | |
| | | | | pr'ty | | |
31| 73 | 3- 2-73|Jos. _v._ | |Adultery, |Mar. |Yeoman |7
| | | Eunice Price | | elopement, |dis.[988] |
| | | | | bastard | | |
32| 75 | 4- 3-78|Sarah _v._ | |Desertion, |Mar. | |
| | | Enoch Kingsley | | remarriage |dis.[988] |13
33| 78 | 2- 3-73|Sarah _v._ | |Cruelty, |Mar. | |
| | | Wm. Gould | | adult., ven. |dis.[988] Merchant |13
| | | | | disease | | |
34| 80 | 4-11-73|Martha _v._ | |Cruelty, |Mar. | |
| | | Adam Air | | adult., fail.| dis. | Turner | 4
| | | | | to prov. | | |
35| 83 |15- 6-74|Martha _v._ | |Desertion, |Mar. | |
| | | Wm. Jones | | remarriage |dis.[988] Tailor |12
36| 85 |15- 6-74|Abigail _v._ | |Adult., ven. |Mar. | |
| | | John Pell | | dis., fail. | dis. |Gentleman |10
| | | | | to prov. | | |
37| 87 |21-11-76|Asaph _v._ |A|Adultery, |Mar. | |
| | | Naomi Leonard | | elopement |dis.[988] |28
38| 90 |?-12-76 |J. C. _v._ |A|Adultery |Mar. | |
| | | Mary Lewis | | |dis.[988] |
39| 92 |27- 5-77|Isaiah _v._ |A|Adultery |Mar. | |
| | | Mary Thomas | | | dis. | Printer | 7
40| 96 | 5- 9-77|Rosanna _v._ |A|Adultery |Mar. | |
| | | Wm. Scott | | |dis.[988] |11
41|101 |30- 1-78|Joshua _v._ |A|Adultery |Mar. | |
| | | Sarah Jay | | |dis.[988] Innholder|19
42|104 |14- 7-78|Wm. _v._ |A|Adultery |Mar. | |
| | | Sarah Sturgis | | | dis. | Mariner |
43|107 |15-10-78|Jas. _v._ Hannah |A|Adultery, |Mar. | |
| | | Thompson | | squandered |dis.[988] Mariner | 2
| | | | | estate | | |
44|110 |25- 2-79|Eliz. _v._ |A|Adult., |Mar. | |
| | | Samuel Bemis | | cruelty,fail.|dis.[988] Yeoman | 3
| | | | | to prov. | | |
45|113 |30-12-79|Ed. _v._ |A|Adultery, |Mar. |Peruke |
| | | Isabella Dawes | | elopement |dis.[988] maker | 9
46|117 |28- 2-80|Rose _v._ |A|Adultery, |Mar. | |
| | | Timothy Corles | | failure to |dis.[988] Yeoman | 9
| | | | | provide | | |
47|120 |20- 2-80|Deborah _v._ |A|Ad., des., |Mar. | |
| | | Ashael Owen | | remar., fail.|dis.[988] |28
| | | | | to prov. | | |
48|122 |19- 9-80|Chloe _v._ |A|Adult., |Mar. |Laborer |
| | | Luke Welch | | deser., fail.|dis.[988] [soldier]|10
| | | | | to prov. | | |
49|126 |21- 9-80|Alice _v._ |A|Adultery, |Mar. | |
| | | Wm. Gray | | failure to |dis.[988] |10
| | | | | provide | | |
50|128 |21- 9-80|Sarah _v._ |A|Adultery, |Mar. | |
|144 | | Valentine Wheeler| | desertion |dis.[988] |34
51|131 | 6-10-80|Mary _v._ |A|Adultery, |Mar. | |
| | | Jno. Marshall | | desertion |dis.[988] |26
52|134 |22-12-80|Rebecca _v._ |A|Adultery, |Mar. | |
| | | Jacob Dunnell | | desertion, |dis.[988] Mariner | 7
| | | | | bastard | | |
53|137 |24- 1-81|Geo. _v._ |I|Incapacity |Mar. | |
| | | Phebe Shearman | | |dis.[988] |
54|140 |25- 1-81|Eliz. _v._ |A|Cruelty, ven. | | |
| | | Samuel Bemis | | dis., adult. | |Husbandman|1½
55|145 |26- 5-81|Mary _v._ |C|Cruelty, |Separate| |
| | | Geo. Lobb | | failure to | b. b. | Mariner | 2
| | | | | provide | | |
56|149 |29- 9-81|Amzi _v._ Jerusha |A|Adultery, |Mar. | |
| | | Doolittle | | elopement | dis. | |
57|150 |29- 2-81|Belah _v._ |A|Adultery, |Mar. | |
| | | Amos Marsh | | desertion | dis. |Husbandman|
58|153 |29-11-81|Abigail _v._ |A|Cruelty, |Mar. | |
| | | Jno. Daniels | | adult.,wasted| dis. | |31
| | | | | estate | | |
59|156 | 3- 5-82|J. P. _v._ |A|Has bastard |Mar. | |
| | | Eliz. Barrere | | | dis. | |
60|158 | 3- 5-82|David _v._ |A|Adult., bas- Mar. | |
| | | Mary Hoit | | tard, |dis.[988] |11
| | | | | elopement | | |
61|161 | 5- 6-82|Rhoda _v._ |A|Deser.,remar.,|Mar. | |
| | | Ben. Pidgin | |fail. to prov.| dis. | |14
62|163 |23-12-82|Eliz. _v._ |A|Adultery, |Mar. | |
| | | Thomas Finnecy |C| cruelty | dis. | Mariner | 4
63|165 |25- 2-83|Ebenezer _v._ |A|Has bastard |Mar. |Sailor |
| | | Anna Tarbox | | | dis. | [captive]| 3
64|166 |15- 4-83|Squire _v._ |A|Has bastard |Mar. | |
| | | Dorcas Baker | | |dis.[988] Soldier |12
6 |168 |14- 5-83|Ann _v._ |C|Cruelty, |Separate| |
| | | David Gardner | | failure to | b. b. | |22
| | | | | provide | | |
66|170 | 4- 6-83|Mary _v._ |A|Adultery, |Mar. | |
| | | Stephen Holman | | disease, | dis. | | 5
| | | | | desertion, | | |
| | | | | failure to | | |
| | | | | provide | | |
67|172 |11- 6-83|Z. W. _v._ |A|Desertion, |Mar. | |
| | | Juda Thayer | | bastard |dis.[988] Yeoman |11
68|173 |18- 6-83|Thos. _v._ |A|Adultery, |Mar. | |
| | | Rosanna Crippen | | elopement | dis. | |
69|175 |18- 6-83|Alice _v._ |A|Adultery, |Mar. | |
| | | Lemuel Hill | | deser., | dis. | |
| | | | | remarriage | | |
70|176 |19- 6-83|Mime _v._ |A|Cruelty, |Mar. | |
| | | T. J. Carnes |C| bastard | dis. | | 6
71|178 | 3- 7-83|David _v._ |A|Adultery, |Mar. | |
| | | Mary Harwood | | elopement | dis. |Husbandman|
72|179 | 3- 7-83|Sarah _v._ |A|Adultery, esp.|Mar. | |
| | | Stephen Temple | | with daughter| dis. | |25
73|181 |17-10-83|Sam. _v._ |A|Adultery, |Mar. | |
| | | Margaret Crafts | | elopement, |dis.[988] Laborer |15
| | | | | bastard | | |
74|184 |17-10-83|Puella _v._ |A|Adultery, |Mar. | |
| | | Sam Kelly | | another wife |dis.[988] | 5
75|186 |27-10-83|Albert _v._ |A|Adultery, |Mar. | |
| | | Ann Fitch | | elopement |dis.[988] Mariner| 6
76|188 |29- 1-84|Phin. _v._ Sybil |A|Adultery |Mar. | |
| | | Chamberlain | | |dis.[988] | 7
77|189 |16- 2-84|Sarah _v._ |A|Adultery, |Mar. | |
| | | Abel Sawyer | | venereal | dis. | |21
| | | | | disease | | |
78|191 |26- 2-84|Jeremiah _v._ |A|Adultery |Mar. | |
| | | Mary Higerty | | |dis.[988] Mariner |14
79|192 |26- 2-84|Andrew _v._ |A|Bastard |Mar. | |
| | | Eliz. Gage | | children | dis. | Mariner |18
80|194 | 4- 3-8 |Mary _v._ |A|Adultery, |Mar. | |
| | | Wm. Pedley |C| cruelty |dis.[988] Mariner| 5
81|196 |16- 3-84|Hannah _v._ |A|Coresp. in 73,|Mar. | |
| | | David Dudley | | desertion |dis.[988] |24
82|198 |16- 3-84|Hannah _v._ |A|Turned wife |Mar. | |
| | | Nehemiah Adams | | out; took |dis.[988]Husbandman|11
| | | | | another woman| | |
83|199 |18- 3-84|Sarah _v._ |A|Adultery, | Denied | |
| | | Francis Rust |C| cruelty | | Trader | 5
83|204 |11- 6-84|Sarah _v._ |C|Cruelty |Separate| |
a | | | Francis Rust | | | b. b. | |
84|201 |10- 5-84|Helena _v._ |C|Cruelty |Separate| |
| | | Jas. Bayard | | | b. b. | Mariner |27
85|202 | 4- 6-84|Sibbla _v._ |W|Another |Mar. | |
| | | G. W. Babcock | | wife |dis.[988] Mariner | 4
86|205 | 6- 7-84|Mary _v._ |A|Adult., |Mar. | |
| | | Thos. Smith | | deser., fail.|dis.[988]Husbandman|12
| | | | | to prov. | | |
87|206 |18-10-84|Sarah _v._ |A|Adult., cru- | | |
| | | Wm. Vernon |C| elty, fail. | Denied | Merchant | 6
| | | | | to prov. | | |
87|214 |21- 7-85|Sarah _v._ |A|Adultery |Mar. | |
a | | | Wm. Vernon | | with negress | dis. | |
87|222 | 1-11-85|Sarah _v._ | |Suit for | | |
b | | | Wm. Vernon | | alimony | Denied | |
88|208 |27-10-84|Appey _v._ |A|Deser., |Mar. | |
| | | Jno. Pumpelly | | remar., fail.|dis.[988] |24
| | | | | to prov. | | |
89|209 |16- 2-85|Patience _v._ |A|Adultery, |Mar. | |
| | | Wm. Cornell | | turned wife | dis. |Cordwainer|21
| | | | | out | | |
90|211 | 3- 3-85|Sarah _v._ |A|Adult., |Mar. | |
| | | Jno. Backus | | deser., fail.|dis.[988] | 6
| | | | | to prov. | |
91|212 | 3- 3-85|Jacob _v._ |A|Adultery, |Mar. | |
| | | Hannah Millard | | elopement |dis.[988] Yeoman |17
92|216 |26-10-85|Hannah _v._ |A|Adultery, |Mar. | |
| | | Moses Elwell | | desertion |dis.[988] Yeoman |12
93|218 |23-11-85|Domin. _v._ |A|Adultery, |Mar. | |
| | | Martha Record | | elopement |dis.[988] |17
94|220 |24-11-85|Jno. _v._ |A|Adultery, |Mar. | |
| | | Hannah Wales | | intoxication | dis. | | 4
9 |224 | 8- 2-86|Anna _v._ |A|Bas., remar., |Mar. | |
| | | Ebenezer Pelton | | des., fail. |dis.[988] | 5
| | | | | to pro. | | |
96|226 |18- 2-86|Rebec _v._ |A|Adult., cru- |Mar. | |
| | | Ebenezer Simpson |C| elty, fail. |dis.[989]Blacksmith|20
| | | | | to prov. | | |
--+----+--------+------------------+-+--------------+------------+----------+

[Footnote 988: Beginning with No. 37, 1776, the record in each suit
consists of (1) the charge; (2) the specifications; and (3) the
decree. The cause or causes assigned in the charge are usually
identical with those named in the decree; but the specifications
often contain more points than does the charge. Before 1776 the
record has two parts, there being but one instance (No. 22, 1770)
of a charge before that date.]

[Footnote 989: Defendant contumacious: does not appear to defend,
though repeatedly summoned.]