[487] MSS. Early Court Files of Suffolk, No. 527. For similar legislation see New Haven Col. Rec., II, 600; Trumbull, Blue Laws, 243.
[488] Mass. Col. Rec., V, 4; Shirley, Early Jurisprudence of New Hamp., 310, 311. The harboring of "strangers"—and "stranger" might be a father, daughter, or son from a neighboring town—gave the good people of the colonies a great deal of trouble. See the illustrations in Weeden, Ecc. and Soc. Hist. of N. E., I, 272; and Howard, Local Const. Hist., I, 87, 88, where the town records are cited.
[489] Whitmore, Col. Laws of Mass. (1660-72), 51, 171; ibid. (1672-86), 101. Cf. Mass. Col. Rec., III, 212 (1650). In 1638 John Emerson, of Scituate, was tried before the general court for abusing his wife: ibid., I, 232; the same year for beating his wife, Henry Seawall was sent for examination before the court at Ipswich: ibid., 233; and in 1663 Ensigne John Williams, of Barnstable, was fined by the Plymouth court for slandering his wife: Goodwin, Pilgrim Republic, 596.
It would seem that the husband, too, really needed some legal protection. The early court records disclose the sad fact that husband-beating was painfully frequent in colonial times. Thus in Plymouth jurisdiction Joan, the wife of Obadiah Miller of Taunton, was presented "for beating and reviling her husband, and egging her children to healp her, bidding them knock him in the head, and wishing his victials might [~c]oake him."—Plym. Col. Rec., III, 75.
The bad practice was not unknown among the "good wives" of Salem. For example, in 1637, at the fifth quarter court, it was decreed: "Whereas Dorothy the wyfe of John Talbie hath not only broak that peace & loue, wch ought to haue beene both betwixt them, but also hath violentlie broke the king's peace, by frequent Laying hands vpon hir husband to the danger of his Life, & Condemned Authority, not co[=m]ing before them vpon command, It is therefore ordered that for hir misdemeaner passed & for prvention of future evills that are feared wilbe co[=m]itted by hir if shee be Lefte att hir Libertie. That she shall be bound & chained to some post where shee shall be restrained of hir libertye to goe abroad or comminge to hir husband till shee manefest some change of hir course.... Only it is pmitted that shee shall come to the place of gods worshipp, to enjoy his ordenances." Later "Dorothy" was punished again for a similar offense: Hist. Coll. Essex Inst., VII, 129, 187. Cf. Howard, Local Const. Hist., I, 326, 327. For further illustrations see Weeden, Ecc. and Soc. Hist, of N. E., I, 294.
[490] Whitmore, Col. Laws of Mass. (1660-72), 129; New Haven Col. Rec., II, 578, and Trumbull, Blue Laws, 201; Conn. Col. Rec., I, 515, and Trumbull, op. cit., 69; New Hamp. Hist. Coll., VIII, 12; Shirley, Early Jurisprudence of N. H., 311; Andros Tracts, III, 13. Cf. a similar law for early New York: Duke of Yorke's Laws, 15.
[491] Plym. Col. Rec., XI, 29, 108, 190, 191.
[492] For the case see ibid., III, 5: "Wee psent Jonathan Couentry ... for makeing mocion of marriage vnto Katheren Bradberey, servant vnto Mr Burne, of the same town, without her master's consent, contrary to Court orders."
[493] See ibid., IV (1666/7), 140, 158, 159.
[494] Goodwin, Pilgrim Republic, 598; cf. Palfrey, Hist. of New England, II, 21.