For the third profile in our “women in colonial Connecticut” series and the second part of our “trespass against women” miniseries, we are going to examine three cases where women were assaulted by a man with an extremely troubling pattern of violent behavior.
In two of the cases, please note the official plaintiff is not the victim of the crime, but Rex, a formal Latin royal title for the King of England. In colonial Connecticut, crimes of “sin” such as fornication, adultery, drunkenness, profanation of the Sabbath, and breaking of the peace were often prosecuted by the government, which was ultimately answerable to the British Crown at the time.
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 August 1726, Moses Tuttle of New Haven was charged “for Breaking the peace by threatning to Consume and Burne the widdow Mary Tuttles house and all that was in it.” Moses denied the charges were true, but the Court found him guilty on the basis of witness testimony. Along with Aaron Tuttle (possibly his brother), he was bound on recognizance for “the Sum of fifty pounds for his Good Behavior towards all his Majesties Good Subjects Especially towards the said Mary Tuttle untill the County Court in Nove[mber] next.”
Court proceedings for Rex (on behalf of Mary Tuttle) vs. Moses Tuttle
Unfortunately for the women of New Haven, Moses’ violent behavior escalated. In September 1726, Silence Tuttle, a “Single woman,” complained to the Court that Moses "Laid Violent hands on her” at Isaiah Tuttle’s house. At first, Silence “Cryed out Mur[d]er and opposed him with all the power She had; he then proceeded to beat and abused her to A Great Degree Striking of her in the face and upon her breast till She was allmost breathless.” Fortunately, she managed to extricate herself from his attack with sheer cunning. When shouting and fighting him off didn’t work, “Shee flattered him and made fair offers to him whereupon he Desisted and Shee Escaped from him.”
Once again, Moses was bound on recognizance, but for the lesser sum of twenty pounds for his “appearance at the County Court to be held in New Haven on the Second Tuesday of November Next to answer the Complaint aforesaid.” However, it appears that none of his family was willing to vouch for him on this occasion, as the court proceedings state, “and no Such Surety appearing he was by mittimus [court order] comitted to the Common Goall [Jail] according to Law in Such Case provided.”
At the November 1726 County Court session, Mary’s and Silence’s cases were adjourned to January 1727 for future consideration. When the January session finally rolled around, Moses failed to appear for reasons that were not listed in the official record. However, “the Court being well Informed of the Difficulty of said Moses Tuttle that he Could not be here See Cause to acquitt and Discharge the said Tuttle from said Bond.” One of his brothers (name not given) appears to have paid the remaining court costs. (County Court Records, New Haven County, Vol. 3, 1713 to 1739, pp. 229, 236).
Court proceedings for Silence Tuttle vs. Moses Tuttle
In August 1727, Lydia Clinton of New Haven became the target of Moses’ most disturbing attack yet. She complained to Justice of the Peace Warham Mather that Moses pulled her off the road between Abraham Basset’s house and Wharton’s brook into the bushes and endeavored to “force her.” This time, Moses “acknowledged himself Guilty according to the presentments.” The Court not only bound Moses on recognizance of nine pounds along with Ezekiel Tuttle (possibly another brother), it was decreed that he would “Receive on his Naked Back twenty stripes at such time as this Court shall here after order or that he pay the sum of 3 [pounds] as a fine for said Crime” (County Court Records, New Haven County, Vol. 3, 1713 to 1739, p. 252).
Record for Rex (on behalf of Lydia Clinton) vs. Moses Tuttle
When one compares these three cases, it is disconcerting to see that as Moses Tuttle’s violence against women increased, the amount he was bound on recognizance for good behavior decreased. While he was jailed for an unspecified amount of time after the first two assaults, the Court inexplicably saw fit to release him from his bond. It is hardly surprising that in such a lenient atmosphere, he went on to assault a third woman.
What “Difficulty” could possibly have made the Court so sympathetic to his plight that they released him from his bond in January 1727? Two seventeenth-century cases involving other members of the Connecticut branch of the Tuttle family may help shed light on Moses’ predilection for violence toward the females in his family, as well as the Court’s tendency toward leniency in this instance. Moses isn’t the first Tuttle to violently assault a family member: in 1677, Benjamin Tuttle of New Haven murdered his married sister Sarah after they quarreled, and he was hanged for it. Moses is also not the first Tuttle to demonstrate behavioral instability: in 1691, Mercy Tuttle Brown of New Haven murdered her seventeen-year-old son Samuel with an ax. But unlike Benjamin, she was not executed for this crime. Because she was thought by many to be “shaken in her understanding,” the Court ultimately decreed that she was to be kept in custody by the magistrates of New Haven. A few genealogical websites claim that Moses Tuttle was “non compos mentis/insane” and died “under discomposure of mind,” which seems to confirm that he may have been considered incapable of taking full responsibility for his actions, and this could have moved the Court to release him from his bond.
Given how large the Tuttle family was and how many first names were repeated in the same and subsequent generations, it is not easy to identify how exactly Mary, Silence, and Moses Tuttle were related. Even if their kinship connections were known, they wouldn’t necessarily explain why he targeted these particular family members. We do know that Mary was a widow and Silence was a single woman. Perhaps this made them more acceptable or appealing targets for masculine rage—as discussed previously in this blog, women who weren’t directly under the purview of a man were more vulnerable to violence in colonial Connecticut, as they were perceived to be unprotected. Which leads us to the question: why was Lydia Clinton also attacked? Given the dearth of information about Lydia’s social status and the interpersonal dynamics between these individuals, this only leads to more questions. Was Lydia related to or otherwise connected with Mary or Silence in some way? Was there any indication in the previous days, weeks, or months that Moses was specifically planning to assault her? Or did he simply seize the opportunity when she happened to be passing by?
Finally, we come to the biggest question of all: did Moses Tuttle continue his pattern of violence against women? According to various genealogical sources, he didn’t pass away until 1779 (or perhaps 1799). But after the severe Clinton verdict, he never appears in the County Court records for such crimes again. Either he was somehow dissuaded by force or by conscience from continuing down this terrible path, or he committed even worse crimes that landed him in front of the Superior Court.
In spite of the unsolved mysteries, these three cases shed important light on how Mary Tuttle, Silence Tuttle, and Lydia Clinton used the court system in an attempt to protect themselves from male violence in their community—as well as the egregious shortcomings of the authorities in effectively dealing with individuals who were deemed “non compos mentis” and in safeguarding the more vulnerable members of society.
In the next blog post, we will conclude this “trespass against women” miniseries by examining the protracted cases of a teenager who sued her aunt, uncle, and cousins for defamation of character.
As noted in a previous post, the records for these cases, 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.