[Footnote 533: _Ibid._ (May 2, 1721), IV, foll. 355, 356. According to the _MSS. Early Court Files of Suffolk_, No. 15,180, the order of execution to the sheriff says she was convicted on her own confession and accused the negro Humphers of being the father. The woman was apparently an experienced sinner. Fifteen years earlier "Jemima Colefix ... being presented ... for whoredom with a Negro, appeared and owned the same but that it was before marriage with her present Husband." Severely whipped twenty stripes, costs, and stands committed: _MSS. Records of the Court of General Sessions of Suffolk_ (Jan. 27, 1706), I, 144.] [Footnote 534: _MSS. Records of the Superior Court of Judicature_ (1730-33), fol. 49.] [Footnote 535: _Ibid._ (1752-53), fol. 190. The _MSS. Early Court Files of Suffolk_, No. 29,729, show that on this conviction without further proof "George Rainer [Raynord]," Mary's husband, got a complete divorce. The statutory limit of forty stripes was originally fixed according to the "law of God": WINTHROP, _Hist. of N. E._, II, (ed. 1825-26), 250.] [Footnote 536: _MSS. Records of the Supreme Judicial Court_ (1781-82), leaf 41. Besides the cases of conviction discussed in the text, there are in the records a number of instances of acquittal for the same offense. In the _MSS. Early Court Files of Suffolk_ (May 28-30, 1700), No. 4715, is an interesting example of extradition for adultery; and the survival of the ancient "chattel" interest of the husband in the wife is revealed by three damage suits for trespass on account of alleged assault upon, and in one for detaining, the wife: _MSS. Records of the Superior Court of Judicature_ (1763-64), fol. 70; _ibid._ (1767-68), fol. 163; _ibid._ (1775-78), fol. 144; _ibid._ (1739-40), fol. 286. A similar case of "drawing away the affections" of a daughter may be found in _MSS. Early Court Files of Suffolk_ (1671-72), No. 1100.] This closes the list of cases found in which the stigma is referred to. On the other hand, there are a number of sentences for adultery, or for what would ordinarily be so regarded, where this penalty is not imposed. These are the cases of semi-adulterous conduct, nominally provided for by the act of 1694, in which there is either no charge or not sufficient evidence of absolute transgression.[537] Usually one and sometimes both of the culprits are married. Fines, stripes, and occasionally banishment are the penalties imposed. As in the early period, there is manifestly a hesitation to urge conviction for "adultery" so as to involve the extreme penalty of the scarlet letter. The courts thus seem to favor a strict construction of the statute, giving the accused the benefit of the more lenient interpretation. In several cases the jury declines to convict for the offense charged where the evidence would clearly seem enough to sustain a verdict.[538]