The colonial laws on this subject were not allowed to slumber. From the records of the Connecticut court of assistants, for instance, it appears that in May, 1694, Nathaniel Finch is complained of "for that he hath unlawfully married to Elizabeth Hemmeway," sister "of the said Finch his first wife." The pleas of Finch's attorney are "esteemed to be insufficient, and also of an offensive nature." Accordingly, having considered all the facts of the case, the "rules of God's word, the judgment of most able Divines, and the Laws of this colony," the court finds the "said marriage to be incestuous and unlawful," and therefore declares it "to be wholly null and void;" further relegating the case to the county court to be held at New Haven the next June, "to lay such punishment on the said Finch for his said offence as the nature thereof doth require."[671] [Footnote 671: _Historical Magazine and Notes and Queries_, II, 301.] While the Massachusetts act of 1695 does not expressly prohibit a woman from wedding her husband's brother, a passage in Sewall's _Diary_ shows that such unions were already treated as unlawful. On December 25, 1691, he writes, the "marriage of Hana Owen with her Husband's brother, is declar'd null by the court of Assistants. She commanded not to entertain him; enjoin'd to make a confession at Braintrey before the Congregation on Lecture Day, or Sabbath, pay fees of court and prison," and "to be dismissed."[672] [Footnote 672: SEWALL'S _Diary_, in 5 _Mass. Hist. Coll._, V, 354. For the case see NOBLE'S _Recs. of the Court of Assistants_, I, 361. Samuel Newton, of Marlborough, married his uncle's widow and had two children by her. This marriage was judged void "by the word of God, as also by the law of England": _ibid._, 342. _Cf._ COWLEY, _Our Divorce Courts_, 30, 31.] VII. SLAVE MARRIAGES