For the fourth profile in our “women in colonial Connecticut” series and the conclusion of our “trespass against women” miniseries, we are going to examine three cases where a female minor accused her aunt, uncle, and cousins of slander.
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 May 1757, Mary Hoadly, a teenager of Branford, filed two lawsuits in an attempt to salvage her blighted reputation. One was against Lucy Barker (her cousin), and another was against Samuel Barker Jr. (also presumably her cousin). She accused both Lucy and Samuel of trespass in the sense of defamation (the legal usage of the term trespass was discussed in a previous post). Mary, Lucy, and Samuel were all minors at the time of these cases. Mary (or Molly, as she was occasionally nicknamed) was represented in court by Jonathan Hoadly, her “father & Natural Guardian.”
Specifically, Mary claimed that Lucy “Did Utter, publish & Declare” that Samuel Barker Jr. “strip[pe]d Molly Hoadly (meaning ye [Plaintiff]) Up to the Navel & Lay in the bed with... her, & Shug[ge]d her & afterwards Molly Came to me & ask[e]d me if I thought She was with Child, & She told me he didnt put it in above an Inch—meaning that s[ai]d Samuel Barker had had Carnal Knowledge of the Body of ye [Plaintiff], whereby ye [Plaintiff] was put in fear of her being with Child & that she had behaved in a Very Lewd & Lascivious Manner with said Samuel.”
Writ for Mary Hoadly vs. Lucy Barker
Similarly, she accused Samuel of falsely declaring “I Lay with Moll Hoadly (meaning ye [Plaintiff]), I Strip[pe]d her up to the Navel, & catch’d her private parts, I Lay with her & another Girl in ye Same bed all night (meaning that he ye [Defendant] had Lascivious Converse with the [Plaintiff] & that She had immodestly prostituted herself to him).”
Writ for Mary Hoadly vs. Samuel Barker Jr.
In both cases, Mary insisted that she was “A Chaste & Continent Virgin” who was “free from all kinds of Lasciviousness, fornication or Debauchery whatsoever” and had been so “from the time of her Nativity until this time.” She also alleged a motive for her cousins' slander, accusing Lucy and Samuel of circulating these tales in “malice Contriving & Intending not only to blacken & take away [Mary’s] good name & fame afores[ai]d but to Render her So Odious to all the good Subjects of the s[ai]d Lord the King as that they should have nothing to do with her, & also to Expose her to the fine & Corporal punishment.”
Cornelia Hughes Dayton offers some additional insight as to why the Barkers engaged in such socially destructive defamation against their own kin. “Women, in attacking another woman’s sexual reputation, were often spreading cautionary tales about in-laws or newcomers who they feared were disreputable. Forty-nine-year-old Hannah Barker slandered her niece because she was concerned that the teenager’s mother, Hannah’s sister, had married into a family of ‘whores’” (Women Before the Bar: Gender, Law, & Society in Connecticut, 1639-1789, p. 321).
As discussed in our introductory post for this series, women were so dependent on the strength of their communal connections in order to survive that they could not afford such egregious besmirchment of character. Indeed, Mary was well aware of how much she stood to lose should her fellow townspeople believe these salacious rumors about her conduct. In her plea, she insists that she has endeavored to maintain a reputation that was “unmarred & of good Estate in order for marriage by which means She might obtain a good & comfortable Livelihood & Enjoy many Lawfull Comforts & Advantages.”
Mary’s fear that mere words would destroy her hopes of a bright future was sadly not unfounded. In colonial Connecticut, “a woman’s honor rested almost entirely on her sexual reputation—at least among those for whom a county court suit mattered” (Dayton, Women Before the Bar, p. 308). Despite the potential ignominy and embarrassment of submitting one’s character and behavior for public examination by the authorities, it could be well worth fighting such rumors in court, as “not only did the young New Haven women who sued over sexual slander win awards, but most of them married soon after their suits were resolved. For a handful of country families, then, a costly defamation case over salacious words had proven effective in clearing the family name and ratifying a young woman’s place in her community” (Dayton, Women Before the Bar, pp. 315-316).
Fortunately for the maligned Mary, Samuel Barker issued a full confession that “he hath foolishly and wickedly Defamed s[ai]d Mary Hoadley... for which he is Sorry & ashamed & hereby pray that God the s[ai]d Mary her father and all Concerned would forgive him and hopes by his future Conduct to Evidence his Sinsear Repentance.” In an apparent attempt to play up the “wretched sinner” role for all the sympathy he could gain, Samuel further stated that “he is in a poor State of health and has been for some years Last past under the Doctors Care unable to Do much Servis Yett being an orphane min[o]r and having No Estate put himself in Mercy of this Court.”
Written confession signed by Samuel Barker Jr.
Given Samuel’s confession, it is not surprising that the Court ruled in Mary’s favor. In both cases, she requested the enormous sum of 500 pounds apiece in damages. However, the Court did not grant her the full awards, most likely because the defendants were only minors. Instead, they decreed that Samuel had to pay 10 pounds in damages plus court costs, and that Lucy had to pay two pounds in damages plus court costs (County Court Records, New Haven County, Vol. 5, 1755 to 1764, pp. 148, 163).
Unfortunately, Mary Hoadly’s troubles did not end after these verdicts in her favor. In December 1758, she and her father filed a lawsuit against her uncle and aunt, Jonathan and Hannah Barker. Apparently, the Barker family had not ceased in their defamation of the Hoadly family’s character, as Mary and Jonathan Hoadly claimed that Jonathan and Hannah Barker “in the Presence and hearing of Many good Subjects of our Lord the King falsely and maliciously did utter these false and Scandalous Words (speaking of and concerning s[ai]d Jonathan Hoadly and said Mary) viz that his Mother was an Whore (meaning s[ai]d Jonathan’s Mother who was then Dead) and so is his Daughter She is just like her Grandmother, meaning s[ai]d Mary by his Daughter.” This time, the Hoadlys requested the hefty sum of 1,000 pounds in damages.
Writ for Mary Hoadly vs. Jonathan and Hannah Barker
Strangely, Mary did not show up to court when her case was finally heard in November 1759, and there is no reference to a further continuance in the County Court after this date. The very last line in the record book concerning this matter states, “the [Plaintiff] being called three times appeared not, but if [Defendant] appeared, it is thereupon considered” (County Court Records, New Haven County, Vol. 5, 1755 to 1764, p. 243).
One would hope that Mary Hoadly was able to move on from this sordid affair and obtain the “good & comfortable Livelihood” that she dearly longed for. But subsequent research reveals that not only did she die unmarried, she also passed away less than a decade after the drawn-out legal fight to clear her name. Her gravestone reads, “Mary Daughter of Mr Jonathan & Mrs Abigail Hoadley died January ye 10th AD 1765 in ye 26th Year of her Age.”
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.