[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.
[958] Mass. Col. Rec., IV, i, 401.
[959] Of course, the alleged "wicked expense" may possibly have been admitted as a second ground.
[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?
[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.
[962] MSS. Early Court Files of Suffolk, No. 1741 (Sept. 9).
[963] Mass. Col. Rec., V, 205.
[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.
[965] Mass. Col. Rec., IV, i, 259, 269; cf. Whitmore, Col. Laws of Mass. (1660-72), 100, note.
[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.