A website from the Massachusetts Historical Society; founded 1791.
close
-
The Adams Papers Digital Edition is undergoing active maintenance while we work on improvements to the system. You may experience slow performance or the inability to access content. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. We will endeavor to return to full capabilities as soon as possible.

Browsing: Legal Papers of John Adams, Volume 2


Docno: ADMS-05-02-02-0001-0001-0002

Author: Adams, John
Date: 1771-11

Adams' Minutes of the Trial1

Essex Superior Court, Salem, November 1771

Pingry vs. Thurston
Lowell.
Prov. Law, page 29. If any Dispute shall arise, it shall be determined. A Penalty for permitt[ing] a Person to give his Voice who is not a qualified Voter.2
Benja. Adams. Parliamentary Abilities. Knew all his Party.
Jona. Herriman. Abel Plummer voted in the Choice of the Moderator. Deacon Thurston said He could, did, and would count him as a Voter. It never was disputed at that Time among the whole People that he was counted. Chaplain said I cant count Abel Plummer. Deacon Thurston said I can, and I do count him. He is as good a Voter as any at [of] the People. Heard the Deacon say since, that he was sorry, he had counted him.
Benj. Adams. They want [i.e. weren't] satisfyed at first, and went out of the two Doors, and as they came in, he could and did count him.
Holmes. Deacon said it was pitty, that Pingry should be at the Expence of proving that he allowed Plummer to vote for he did and would allow it, and pleaded Conscience for so doing. He counted and allowed him a Voter. He mentioned a Mistake of the Assessors, and said that P[lummer] had more than Estate eno.
Mr. Farnham.
Jeremiah Searl. Clerk of the Meeting, and by the Moderator the whole Time. Many Thought Plummer was a Voter, many Thought otherwise. Much said upon it. Mod[erato]r said he was not acquainted with the Law. A Vote was called by Hand. The Moderator was not satisfyd. A Poll was called for. I heard him declare he should not count Abel Plummer. Anabaptists were all among the opposite side to Plummer. The Moderator condescended to Poll the People, and desired the Constable and one Mr. Chaplain to assist him. Moderator and Constable, and Chap[lain] went to one Door, and Moderator3 and Constable to the other. Moderator got up and told em to attend to a Vote, there was no need of the Noise, there was a Vote without Plummer. 1/2 a doz. times said he should not reckon him and declared { 4 } it when he ordered me to record it—a Vote without reckoning Plummer—allowing the Baptists and rejecting Plumer a Vote.4
Mr. Spoffard. Moderator commanded silence, and said there was no need of the Clammr. There is a Vote without Plummer, and I declare it a Vote without him. Clerk record it.
Moses Dole. Moderator declared at the Door, there was a Vote without Abel Plummer. They need not make such a Clamr.
John Tinney, Constable. An Objection vs. A. Plummer. Moderator tryd by Hand Vote. 48. 58. 68. A Mistake in the Valuation. Moderator tryd 3 Ways. I counted with him, and there was a Dispute about 3 Baptists.5 I made one Odds for the Vote. Moderator said leaving out Ab. Plummer and counting the Baptists there was one Odds. No need of the dispute. There is a Vote without Plummer. Such a Noise that half could not hear. We dont want6 him, I declare it a Vote. Afterwards he said he determined to set him aside if there had been a Tye.
Wm. Chandler. 3 Ways. I dont want him to vote, there is a vote without him. I declare it to be a Vote. Clerk record it.
1. In JA's hand. Adams Papers, Microfilms, Reel No. 185.
2. See note 3 above. Lowell's citation is to Temporary Acts and Laws Of His Majesty's Province of the Massachusetts Bay in New-England (Boston, 1763), where the Act appears at p. 28–30.
3. Thus in MS.
4. Thus in MS. JA's notes are slightly garbled, but the sense is clear.
5. The dispute may have arisen because the Baptists in question were exempt from taxation to support the ministry. See No. 37. If such were the case, it may have been argued that they could not vote on a question involving church affairs. That this argument was invalid in 1768 is suggested by the fact that the ministerial tax exemption act of 30 June 1740, c. 6, §4, 2 A&R 1022, expressly barring persons exempt from tax for religious reasons from voting on questions pertaining to the settlement of ministers and the construction of meetinghouses, expired in 1757. Its successor, the Act of 25 Jan. 1758, c. 20, 4 A&R 67, contained no such bar, and a restriction was not enacted again until the Act of 20 Nov. 1770, c. 10, §5, 5 A&R 113.
6. That is, “need.”

Docno: ADMS-05-02-02-0001-0002-0001

Editorial Note

Two leading natural resources of the North Shore, clams and salt-marsh hay, provided the stakes in this unusual trespass action. The land in question lay largely under water in what was then Chebacco Parish, Ipswich, and is now a part of the town of Essex, apparently in the area known today as Cross Island, near the mouth of the Essex River.1
Ipswich people, and those from neighboring Gloucester (sometimes called “Cape Ann”), had disputed the common boundary since at least { 5 } 1642, and had apparently resolved the issue by a joint “perambulation” in 1767. Meanwhile, the Proprietors of the Common Lands of Ipswich, otherwise known as the Commoners, had annually let the thatch banks to the highest bidder, only Commoners having the right to bid.2 They had also attempted to regulate the clam trade, by appointment of a committee and promulgation of a kind of bag limit.3
Enter now in canoes, digging, Adams' clients, Israel and John Herrick, Gloucestermen both, and an anonymous crowd of their fellow townsmen. They “trod down, trampled upon, dug, tore up, and consumed the soil and Thatch Banks . . . and thereout dug, took and converted to their own Use one hundred Bushels of Clams of the said Proprietors there being and growing.”4 The Commoners responded by voting John Patch III, Isaac Smith, and Isaac Dodge, a committee to “Persue the Trespassers to finall Judgment and Execution.”5 This the committee tried to do, commencing an action in the Ipswich Inferior Court in March 1771, and after a jury verdict for the Herricks,6 appealing to the Superior Court.7 There, on the { 6 } testimony summarized in Adams' minute set out below, the jury brought in a special verdict: the land was on salt-water flats on an arm of the sea about two miles up Chebacco River, the Commoners held title to it, the defendants had entered upon it and dug fifty bushels of clams, and damages totaled four shillings. To the judges the jury left the decision whether or not plaintiffs' action was well founded.8
Although the file papers and Adams' minutes afford slim evidence of the question the court faced, Adams and John Lowell, his co-counsel, seem to have argued that trespass could not lie here (at least for the clams), because the Province Charter guaranteed free fishing. They also apparently attempted to introduce evidence of a custom of clamming, which plaintiffs opposed on the technical ground that such evidence was inadmissible when the defendants, as here, had merely pleaded “not guilty,” and had not raised any legal justification in their plea. On the basis of the materials Adams himself set out, his legal position seems weak. The Court shared this view, and in June 1772 entered up judgment for the plaintiffs for the four shillings plus costs of £16 9s. 8 1/2d.9
1. The file includes rough maps. SF 132186. See also U.S. Corps of Engineers charts N4233.75–W7037.5/8 × 7.5 (1944) and N4237.5–W7045/7.5 (1945).
2. T. F. Waters, “The Development of Our Town Government,” 8 Ipswich Hist. Soc., Pubns. 2, 14 (1900); the file contains copies of records of several annual meetings at which the flats were let. SF 132186.
3. “Voted, that the Committe take care of all the Flats and Clams therein belonging to the Proprietors of the Common Lands In Ipswich and that no Person or Persons be allow'd to Digg Any more Clams than for their own use and to be Expended in the Town, And that all Owners of Fishing Vessels and Boats shall apply to one of said Committe for Liberty to Digg Clams for their Vessels Use, Fare by Fare [that is, journey or trip], and no Owner of Vessel, or Vessels, Boat or Boats, shall digg more Clams than shall be Allow'd by one or more of said Committe on Penalty of Prosecution; Said Committe are to Allow one Barrel of Clams to Each Man of Every Vessel going to the Banks Every Fare, and so Also in proportion to Boats Fishing in the Bay, And a Majority of said Committe are Impowered to prosecute all Offenders (To this Vote) To finall Judgment and Execution in the Name and Behalf of said Proprietors.” SF 132186. Waters, “Development of Our Town Government,” says that this vote (4 July 1763) was the first regulation of which he was aware.
4. Writ, SF 132186.
5. 13 Feb. 1771. SF 132186.
6. The Wetmore Notes contain a report of this phase of the case:
“Ipswich Commoners v. Herrick trespass for digging by Glocester men upon Ipswich flats for clams. See the Charter enabling any Subjects (of K. of Eng.) whatever to fish on the Coasts in the seas or arms of the Seas or Salt water Rivers as they have been wont, to cut and take such Trees and other materials there growing or being upon any parts or places lying waste and not in the possession of particular proprietors for wharves Stages &c. and for all other necessary helps and advantages concerning the trade of fishing there in such manner and form as they have been accustomed to do, without wilful waste or spoil.
“Waste is taken for lands in no mans occupation but lying common. So called because the lord cant make such profit of them as of other lands, by reason of others using and passing to and fro on them.
“The plea is not guilty. Plaintiffs' evidence was of leasing the Bull Island knobs, the Thatch grounds (and once the Island) from 1745 to 1768, and of improvement since. The defendants' evidence was of divers peoples improvement by digging clams for several years of the term aforesaid but that Some times they (especially Glocester men) having notice that the Plaintiffs claim'd and let the banks would retire without getting the clams.
“See L. Raym. 1535. Dutch East India Company sue and on non assumpsit must shew the proper instrument by Law of Holland creating the corporation.”
The cited case is Jacob Lopes Henriques et al. v. The General Privileged Dutch Company Trading to the West Indies, 2 Ld. Raym. 1532, 1535, 92 Eng. Rep. 494, 496 (H.L. 1730), which seems to hold that when a corporation brings an action, it need not prove its incorporation unless the defendant pleads the general issue.
7. Under an agreement between counsel that “the appearance of one of the Committee be admitted for all.” SF 132186.
8. SF 132186. Apparently a special verdict of this sort was the product of negotiation between counsel. In the file are three versions of the verdict, the first of which contains no mention of the land's tidewater location. On the verso of this version JA wrote: “and the Flatts where the Clams were dug are upon the Coasts of New England, upon an arm of the Sea, or Salt Water River, Where the King's Subjects had been wont to fish, when the Charter of this Province was made.” An unidentified hand added: “Note not the least Evidence hath been offered of this.” The second version, and the third, which is a fair copy of it, contain an interpolation to the effect that the lands in question were “salt water flatts lying on an arm of the sea and about two miles up Chebaco River.”
9. Min. Bk. 93, SCJ Ipswich, June 1772, C–9; SJC Rec. 1772, fol. 90.
Cite web page as: Founding Families: Digital Editions of the Papers of the Winthrops and the Adamses, ed.C. James Taylor. Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 2014.
http://www.masshist.org/apde2/