I’m impressed with Master Danforth’s restraint in imposing no punitive damages, requiring Bacon only to “make Munroe whole,” as lawyers say. One might expect a decent, law-abiding citizen, caught in a moment of ill-temper and chastised for it in a court of law, to cut his losses at this point, to pay up, to shut up, and to retire to lick his wounds and—one might hope—to behave better in the future.
Michael Bacon, however, was clearly not that sort of citizen. Four days after the Christmas hearing, he counter-sued, obliging the magistrate to issue a summons to Grandpa William to appear, again at the Danforth domicile, a month later in the new matter of Bacon vs Row, a “review” of the previous action, Row vs Bacon.
|Note the date, which illustrates the complexities of the Old and New Styles of dating. In the year that began in March, 1671, January was Month 10, Old Style. And it was still 1671. Historians and genealogists usually translate “29 . 10 . 1671” as 29 January 1671/2.|
|Bacon may have introduced this counter-claim at the Christmas hearing; it’s undated. Or it may have been part of his countersuit. Balanced against the weight of Munroe’s multiple witnesses, it’s pretty feeble. As Danforth apparently agreed…|
Back a Page
William and Mary
Updated Feb 2014
|Our Stories: Welcome Presentations People Places Updates Do you know?|