The proceedings of the Massachusetts courts contain the record of many similar suits under a variety of conditions. Some are ordinary cases of breach of promise.[607] In 1735 a woman was awarded two hundred pounds and costs at the expense of her betrothed who after jilting her had married another, although he had first beguiled her into deeding him a piece of land "worth £100."[608] Hopestill Aldrich in 1764 was not so successful. The higher court on appeal declined to give her damage, because after beginning her action against the faithless Darius Daniels she had married David Bowin, "who is still living and is her lawful husband."[609] A number of cases afford further evidence of the danger lurking in the New England doctrine of espousals, the indemnity sought being intended in part to punish personal wrongs committed under cover of pre-contract.[610] [Footnote 607: For examples see _MSS. Records of the County Court of Middlesex_ (Apr. 2, 1661), I, 185; _MSS. Early Court Files of Suffolk_ (1663), No. 573; _MSS. Records of the Superior Court of Judicature_ (1725-29), fol. 333; _ibid._ (1725-30), fol. 338; _ibid._ (1730-33), fol. 196.] [Footnote 608: _Ibid._ (1735-36), fol. 243.] [Footnote 609: Case of Daniels _v._ Bowin _et ux._: _ibid._ (1764-65), fol. 4.] [Footnote 610: Thus in 1686 John Row was sentenced for "committing folly with Martha Beale, then servant to his father, & publishing himself in marriage to her and now denying to accomplish the marriage."--_MSS. Records of the County Court of Middlesex_, IV, 218. For other cases of this kind see _MSS. Records of the Superior Court of Judicature_ (1730-31), fol. 1; _ibid._ (1745-46), fol. 253; _MSS. Early Court Files of Suffolk_ (Nov. 19, 1663), No. 600.] Puritan lovers did not always hesitate to prosecute their parents for refusing marriage when permission had once been given. Such was the fate of Hope Allen, who admitted before the Massachusetts court that "he did give his consent y^t y^e said Mr. Deacon should haue his daughter;" and accordingly for breaking his word he was censured, and had to pay a fine of ten pounds for his "irregular procedure."[611] The action might take a still more interesting form, including both the recreant parents and the promised consort in the same complaint. In this way Richard Sutton alleges "against Moses Symonds and Sarah, his wife, and Elizabeth theire daughter, that shee, the said Elizabeth, hath made a promise of marriage vnto him, and is hindered by the parents ... from proceeding with her therin." The court after due consideration decides that Moses ought to pay the said Richard "the su[=m]e of three pounds, for satisfaction for his time and charges spent about the [p=]mises;" but not without kindly releasing the couple from their engagement, "vnless on second considerations they shall see cause to renew theire former couenants."[612] [Footnote 611: _Mass. Col. Rec._, IV, Part II, 458.]