xxxvi               Introduction.




          The rumored cruelty of masters, sometimes confirmed by the courts, inclined
          people to sympathize with runaways, even when allowance is made for the
          admittedly low quality of those who ran. At this time there were not more than
          a handful of such cases. George Beckwith, who appeared in court on Decem
          ber 10, 1672, with his servant John Owen, and made oath that the man had
          absented himself for fifty days, asked the benefit of the act of Assembly. “and
          the Court Computing the time, ordered the said John Owen to serve the said
          George Beckwith faithfully untill the la3t of January next & then to be free.”
          (post, p. so). It is assumed that “January next” meant January 1672/3, so
          that Owen had to serve only day for day. On the other hand, two other “ser
          vants unto David Driver, being brought by their said Master into Court, and he
          fully making it appeare to the Court that they had Runnaway from him thirty
          six days apeice, It is by the Court ordered that they serve their said Master one
          yeare a peice” (ibid., p. 92). This figures out to almost exactly ten days for
          one. In another case, a runaway, being caught, was ordered to serve seven
          months, though there is no word on how long he had absconded himself (ibid.,
          p. 179). One man who was charged with permitting servants to pass without
          their master's permission, was ordered to pay 6/8, and on paying it, he was dis
          charged (ibid., pp. 39, 44). One Thomas Chew, lawful servant to John Atkey,
          departed his service, and, after seven months, came into the hands of William
          Boyden. When Atkey sued Boyden for 8ooo pounds of tobacco, the jury found
          for the defendant and awarded him 997 pounds for his costs. Though this
          decision said nothing about the servant, it is presumed that he went free (ibid.,
          pp. 63-65).
            One of the few crimes committed by servants was the murder of John
          Hawkins by his servants, already referred to (ante, p. xviii). Because the men
          were servants of the man they killed, the case was petty treason instead of
          murder. Three women, presumably servants though not so described, were
          charged with having bastards and killing them: of the three, one was ordered
          to be hanged and presumably was hanged; one was acquitted by the court
          without a jury, and one was declared by a jury to be not guilty (post, 9, 20, 33).
          One woman, Amy Markes, was presented by the grand jury for having a bastard
          which apparently she did not kill. The mere having a bastard was a crime, and
          the penalty for it, when the father was not disclosed, was additional servitude
          for the mother to recompense her master for the trouble she had put him to
          (Archives, I, 441-442). Amy Markes was presented on the strength of an
          informer's testimony, but when she came to trial, no one appeared against
          her and she was acquitted by proclamation (ibid., 30). There were at this time
          no suits for damages brought by the master of a woman servant against the
          father of the bastard.
            The case involving Robert Harper shows that now and then there was a ser
          vant much above the type fit only to work in the tobacco field. Harper was a
          servant of Garrett Vansweringen “& Skilfull in administring phisick and pro
          sesseing the same” (post, p. 528) Roger Shehee “being Sick & languishing of
          various and divers distempers of body” arranged with Vansweringen to have
          the physician-servant treat him, and he promised to pay the master “what for