The Case of the Piglet’s Paternity. Jon C. Blue

latter description.

      At some point in the mid-1650s, the General Court asked the governor to provide for a more detailed set of laws. The records of the General Court for May 30, 1655, state that

      the governor being formerly desired by this Court to view over the laws of this jurisdiction and draw up those of them which he thinks will be most necessary to continue as laws here and compile them together fit to be printed, which being done, were now read, considered, and by vote confirmed, and ordered to be printed…. The Court further desired the governor to send for one of the new book of laws in the Massachusetts Colony, and to view over a small book of laws newly come from England, which is said to be Mr. Cotton’s, and to add what is already done as he shall think fit, and then the Court will meet again to confirm them, but in the meantime (when they are finished) they desire the elders of the jurisdiction may have the sight of them for their approbation also.²⁶

      The “new book of laws” referred to was the 1648 Code of the Massachusetts Colony.²⁷ That work was enormously influential, inspiring both the Code of Laws published by the Connecticut Colony in 1650²⁸ and the 1656 New Haven Laws.

      By October 19, 1655, the governor had completed his task. The records of the General Court for that day state that “the laws which at the Court’s desire have been drawn up by the Governor, viewed and considered by the elders of the Jurisdiction, were now read and seriously weighed by this Court, and by vote concluded and ordered to be sent to England to be printed, with such oaths, forms, and precedents as the Governor shall think meet to put in.”²⁹

      The laws of the New Haven Colony were printed in London in 1656.³⁰ Their introductory statement of law, echoing that of the 1648 Massachusetts Code, sets forth their governing principle.

      No man’s life shall be taken away, no man’s honor or good name shall be stained, no man shall be deprived of his wife or children, no man’s goods or estate shall be taken from him under Color or Countenance of Authority, unless it be by virtue or equity of some express Law of this Jurisdiction established by the General Court and sufficiently published, or for want of a Law in any particular case, by word of God, either in the Court of Magistrates or some Plantation Court, according to the weight and value of the cause, only all Capital causes, concerning life or banishment where there is no express Law, shall be judged according to the word and Law of God by the General Court.³¹

      The 1656 Laws are thus not intended to provide an exclusive codification of legal rules. While printed laws are to govern when applicable, where there is a “want of a Law” the “word of God” will fill in the gaps.

      On June 25, 1656, the governor informed the Court of Magistrates that five hundred “law books” had arrived by ship. The books were ordered to be divided among the constituent towns of the colony, for which each town was obliged to pay twelve pence a copy.³²

      The 1656 Laws proved to be of little practical consequence. While they may have been consulted behind the scenes, they were rarely cited as authority in the colony’s judicial rulings (see chapter 18, “The Disputed Will” and chapter 20, “The Stolen Silverware”). As far as the New Haven courts were concerned, both before and after 1656, the governing authority was that of the Bible.

      THE UNION WITH THE CONNECTICUT COLONY

      In 1662, Charles II issued a charter to the Connecticut Colony. Under the charter, the Connecticut Colony, which previously bordered the New Haven Colony to the north, was now bounded “on the South by the Sea.”³³

      The 1662 Charter proved to be a deathblow to the New Haven Colony, which no longer enjoyed official existence in the eyes of English officials. A month later, the inhabitants of Southold voted to join the Connecticut Colony. Stamford and Guilford soon followed. Milford left in 1664, leaving Branford and New Haven to hold out to the bitter end.³⁴

      The last recorded New Haven trial was conducted in 1663, as recounted in chapter 33, “The Burning Barn.” On December 14, 1664, the New Haven Colony gave up the ghost and sent a letter to the Connecticut Colony seeking “love and union between us.”³⁵ On January 5, 1665, the colonies formally united.³⁶ The New Haven Colony, its government, its laws, and its trials, were now consigned to the dust of history.

       The Courts

      The New Haven Colony had a three-tiered court system. The Plantation Courts, one for each of the colony’s six towns, formed the bottom tier. The Court of Magistrates occupied the middle rung. At the top of the judicial ladder was the General Court.

      The records tell us little about the Plantation Courts. It is clear, however, that each town had one or more magistrates elected by the free burgesses of the town. In addition to their task of trying minor civil and criminal cases, the magistrates “examined” parties and witnesses involved in more serious cases and sent records of those examinations to the higher courts.

      In contrast, the records tell us a great deal about the General Court and the Court of Magistrates. They don’t tell us everything we’d like to know, but many details can be reconstructed.

      THE GENERAL COURT

      The General Court, the highest judicial authority in the colony, was not a “court” in the modern sense of the word. As mentioned, under the 1643 fundamental order, the General Court consisted of the governor, the deputy governor, all of the colony’s magistrates, and two deputies from each of the colony’s six towns.³⁷ The number of magistrates wasn’t fixed,³⁸ so the membership of the court could vary in size. If each town had one magistrate, the court would have twenty members. But some towns had at least two magistrates, so the total number of officials entitled to sit on the court probably numbered about two dozen.

      In practice, not all members actually participated in the General Court’s functions. Although the records often fail to describe the court’s composition in individual cases, particularly in the colony’s early years, the roster of the court is sometimes provided. In the 1656 Case of the Farmhand Arsonist (chapter 19), for example, the court consisted of seventeen members: the governor, the deputy governor, three magistrates (one each from New Haven, Milford, and Guilford), and two deputies each from New Haven, Milford, Guilford, Stamford, Southold, and Branford.³⁹

      Just as the General Court was not composed of specialized judges, its business was not strictly judicial. There was no strict separation of powers in the New Haven Colony. While the governor had an executive role, he also presided over the upper courts. The General Court combined judicial, legislative, and executive functions. Under the 1643 fundamental order, it had the “power to make and repeal laws and, while they are in force, to require execution of them in the several plantations.”⁴⁰ It could also “hear and determine all causes.”⁴¹ It additionally had the duty to “provide for the maintenance of the purity of religion, and suppress the contrary, according to their best light from the word of God and all wholesome and sound advice which shall be given by the elders and churches in the jurisdiction.”⁴² The court’s business was thus characterized by a wide-ranging array of secular functions along with the combined affairs of church and state.

      The records are silent concerning the court’s physical circumstances. There was almost certainly no “courthouse” in the modern sense of the word. By tradition, the court first met in a large barn in New Haven.⁴³ Thereafter, it probably met in a convenient building, such as a church, a house, or a barn. It may have occasionally met outdoors. A record of the February 15, 1660, session of the (much smaller) Court of Magistrates notes that “the season being cold, the Court removed to a private house to consider [the] matter.”⁴⁴

      Although the General Court differed from the Court of Magistrates in its responsibility for nonjudicial business, there does not appear to have been a strict practical demarcation in the types of judicial business coming before