For the fifth and final profile in our “disease in colonial New England” series, we examine a case where a young man’s imprudent escapades cost him not just his health and his apprenticeship, but also made legal trouble for his father.
When quoting from documents, we will use the actual spelling, including transcriptions of individual words as necessary. (For more information about colonial spelling practices, see The Standardization of American English at teachinghistory.org.) In certain circumstances, we will add missing letters to abbreviated words or substitute modern spelling in brackets to enhance reader comprehension.
In March 1768, Stephen Burret of New Haven sued Mordecai Marks of Derby for covenant broken. Back in 1762, Marks indentured his son Nehemiah to Burret in order to learn the trade of a tailor until the boy reached twenty-one years of age in October 1767. This was common English practice that originated during the Middle Ages, as a Venetian visitor to England observed:
The want of affection in the English is strongly manifested towards their children; for after having kept them at home till they arrive at the age of 7 or 9 years at the utmost, they put them out, both males and females, to hard service in the houses of other people, binding them generally for another 7 or 9 years. And these are called apprentices, and during that time they perform all the most menial offices; and few are born who are exempted from this fate, for every one, however rich he may be, sends away his children into the houses of others, whilst he, in return, receives those of strangers into his own. And on inquiring their reason for this severity, they answered that they did it in order that their children might learn better manners (Charlotte Augusta Sneyd and the Camden Society, A Relation or Rather a True Account of the Island of England, pp. 24-25).
However, Marks’ son failed to learn such refinement during his indenture. Per Burret’s complaint, “on or about the Month of March 1765,” Nehemiah committed fornication and contracted “The Venereal Disease or French Pox [otherwise known as syphilis] whereby he languished & sickened for the space of two years thence following.” Burret subsequently “lost the Service of s[ai]d Nehemiah for s[ai]d Time and was put to great Cost trouble & Expence in nursing and tending s[ai]d apprentice to the great Disturbance of the Quiet of the Pl[aintif]f his Wife & Family.”
According to Burret, Nehemiah’s behavior was a direct violation of the indenture contract, which stated—among other things—that the apprentice “shall not absent himself from his master’s Service day nor night without his Liberty, at any unlawful game he shall not play, fornication he shall not commit, nor matrimony contract within said term.” Because Nehemiah committed fornication and caught a disease that rendered him unfit to serve, Burret considered the indenture covenant “altogether broken & unkept” and sought 200 pounds in damages from Nehemiah’s father, Mordecai.
Writ for Stephen Burret vs. Mordecai Marks
On first glance, Burret’s lawsuit seemed pretty damning for Marks. As we’ve discussed previously, men were the definitive heads of their households in colonial New England. And as the popular saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility: the head of household was legally answerable for their wives, minor children, servants, and enslaved persons within their domain. The New Haven County Court records demonstrate this principle. Husbands appeared jointly with or entirely on behalf of their wives in court, and they could also be prevailed upon to account for their wayward children. For example, in 1742, Ephraim Pierson of Guilford was summoned regarding his daughter Mary. She was charged with fornication but failed to appear, and since Ephraim was bound on recognizance, the Court held him financially responsible for any damages her misconduct incurred.
However, Mordecai Marks wasn’t about to pay for his son’s misbehavior. He pleaded abatement of the charges, stating that he “was no otherwise party to s[ai]d Indenture than as Guardian to s[ai]d Nehemiah & Testifying his Consent to the s[ai]d Nehemiah[’]s binding himself apprentice.” He further argued that because “he was not bound Jointly & Severally” with his son in the contract, he “may not by Law be sued without him.” (Interestingly, the writ originally named Nehemiah as a co-defendant in this lawsuit, but this line was crossed out for unknown reasons.)
Another potential point in Marks’ favor was that, in the contract language Burret provided for the writ, there was no clause specifically holding Mordecai financially responsible should Nehemiah violate the terms of the indenture. In addition to the arguments Marks made, this technicality may have influenced the Court’s decision, for not only did they find the defendant’s declaration sufficient, they also awarded him the recovery of his court costs.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, Burret elected to appeal this verdict, and Mr. Benjamin Douglass of New Haven was bound on recognizance of 20 pounds “that the Pla[i]nt[iff] shall prosecute this Appeal to effect and answer all Damages if he make not his plea good” (County Court Records, New Haven County, Vol. 7, 1767 to 1773, p. 144).
While we will not be able to find additional information about the appeal until we reach the Superior Court records, we did discover information about Mordecai’s and Nehemiah’s backgrounds that lends additional interest to this matter.
Mordecai Marks was a Sephardic Jew who emigrated from London in 1721, became a prosperous merchant, converted to Anglicanism, and married Elizabeth Hawkins of Derby, Connecticut. Their son Nehemiah was born in 1746. Amazingly, Nehemiah’s youthful indiscretions do not appear to have permanently damaged his reputation, livelihood, or even his health, as he married Elizabeth “Betsy” Hawkins of Derby in 1770 and fathered at least eight children. However, in the eyes of the Patriots, Nehemiah committed even worse crimes by going to New York and joining the British side of the Revolutionary War. Eventually, he was forced to relocate to Canada with several other Loyalist families, where he was lauded as “a man of marked ability and energy” and lived out the rest of his days until his death in 1799 (Military Correspondence: 1780-1781, The Loyalist Collection, University of New Brunswick).
As noted in a previous post, the records for this case, as well as several of the cases previously profiled in this blog, are currently in the process of being digitized. They will eventually be available for public viewing at the Connecticut Digital Archive (CTDA).
The Connecticut State Library would like to thank the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC) for their generous support of this project.
Connecticut State Library | 231 Capitol Avenue, Hartford, CT 06106 | 860-757-6500 * Toll-free 866-886-4478
Disclaimers & Permissions | Privacy Policy | State of Connecticut Home Page
The State of Connecticut is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer and strongly encourages the applications of women, minorities, and persons with disabilities.
0 Comments.