Although Mary is fined 40_s_. by the County Court in June, for the birth of her child, it is not declared illegitimate by the usual form, the authorities being nonplussed by the fact she and John Rogers so publicly took each other as husband and wife. She is not called upon to declare who is the child’s father, nor is the latter charged with its maintenance, as in cases of illegitimacy. Evidently, John Rogers did not expect any court action, in the case of so public a ceremony. He declines to pay a fine so disgraceful to his wife and child, and appeals to the Superior Court. The court decides that, since the fine was not accompanied by other due forms of law, it is invalid, but refers the matter to the future consideration of the County Court, which results in no further action in regard to this child. Mary is also summoned before this same June court and fined 10_s_., “for her wicked and notorious language to John Rogers, Jr.,” evidently on complaint of the latter. In this crisis, her husband presents himself at the court, partly in her defense and partly in that of his son. He calls attention to a mark upon her face, which he says she declares to have been inflicted by the hand of his son John, during his own absence from home, and that upon this account “she has become so enraged as to threaten the life of somebody, as she has done before from time to time,” and he is “fearful that if God or man do not prevent it,”[93] serious consequences may follow. John, Jr., is fined 10_s._ on this evidence of his father. Although the injury to Mary, as indicated by the fine, is nothing serious as a wound, yet it proves how far the young man lost self-control in this instance. John Rogers, Sr., objects to the fine imposed upon Mary under these circumstances, but his statement before the court is evidently intended not only as a defense of his son, but as a check upon herself. Footnote 93: The statements in this paragraph are from an affidavit still extant at New London, in the handwriting of John Rogers. [There is the evidence of a no more partial witness than Peter Pratt that John Rogers never complained, outside his own home, of the domestic troubles resulting from this marriage.[94] In the above instance, he was compelled, by the action of his son, to testify, both in Mary’s defense and in excuse of his son. Upon this court record and affidavit is founded Miss Caulkin’s statement that appeal was made to the court to “quell domestic broils” arising from this marriage. It is to the advantage of this history that the family affairs of John Rogers were in this instance forced before the public, since we may observe the manner in which the father and husband endeavors to secure an impartial administration of justice, and immunity of any one from harm.] Footnote 94: “Prey Taken from the Strong.”