Besides the arraignment of the Rogers family at the June court, as previously described, a suit is brought by Matthew Griswold for damages to the amount of £300. A part of this sum is for the Mamacock farm, which John Rogers very naturally declined to deliver up to the marshal on demand of the divorced wife, which refusal is denominated by Mr. Griswold in this suit a “breach of covenant.” Another part is for the Griswold share of articles comprised in the marriage settlement of the fathers upon the couple. In this sum of £300 is also included a considerable charge for the maintenance of Elizabeth and her children at her father’s, during the time between her leaving her husband’s house and the date of the divorcement by the General Court; also board for her and her first child three months at her father’s house, during an illness following birth of said child (see Chapter XIV, “Dragon’s Teeth”). Thus the divorced husband is asked to deliver up the farm he gave Elizabeth in full expectation of her remaining his wife, to repay all that her father gave them during the four years of their happy married life, to pay her board during a visit to her father’s house by solicitation of her parents,[43] and also to recompense her father for the maintenance of herself and children at the same place after she had deserted her husband and forcibly taken away his children. ----- Footnote 43: An evident attempt is made by the Griswolds, in inserting this item in the bill for damages, to lay the illness of Elizabeth following the birth of her child to some failure on the part of the young husband to suitably provide for her confinement. Her son, John Rogers, 2d, however, in his “Reply” to his half-brother, Peter Pratt, mentions a far more serious and lengthy illness that befell Elizabeth upon the birth of her latter son, during which illness both she and her husband, Peter Pratt, Sr., had great misgivings regarding the justice of her divorce from John Rogers. That the illness in either case was of a constitutional origin is indicated by the parallel cases. It is to the credit of this County Court that, although incensed at the audacity of John Rogers in bringing a load of shoes into town on the first day of the week, together with his other “offenses,” it decides this case wholly in favor of the defendant. An appeal is taken by Mr. Griswold. In the following October his suit comes before the Superior Court at Hartford. This court reverses the decision of the County Court as regards the farm, which is to “stand firm” to Elizabeth “during her natural life.” At the October session of the General Court, Elizabeth Griswold petitions that her children may be continued with her and brought up by her, their father “being so hettridox in his opinions and practice.”