Since John Waterhouse is to be so potent a factor in Rogerene history, let us scrutinize him as closely as the scanty glimpses permit. Is he not some young scapegrace, allied to the Rogerenes for love of their so venturesome and exciting life? So he might be judged, but for the preamble of one old deed of gift on the New London records, despite the fact that he is a son of Jacob Waterhouse and grandson of Mr. Robert Douglass,[134] two of the most substantial citizens of New London and members of the Congregational church. Jacob Waterhouse, in 1717, singled out this son John to receive, by deed of gift, the family homestead, “my father’s habitation,[135] near the mill bridge,” as well as a valuable tract of land at “Foxen’s Hill” on the river; not because he was his oldest son, but “for love and appreciation of his dutiful behavior.” It is, then, the dutiful son of a wealthy and honorable citizen of New London who was arraigned as above at the June court in 1720. Surely it would not be wise to omit visiting upon this renegade youth dire punishment for his bold espousal of Rogerene faith and Rogerene methods, lest other promising young men of the Congregational fold should dare to venture upon a like career. Footnote 134: Jacob Waterhouse married Ann Douglass (daughter of Mr. Robert Douglass and Mary Hempstead, daughter of Robert Hempstead). John was their oldest child, born, 1690. Footnote 135: Viz., homestead of Jacob Waterhouse, 1st, one of the planters of New London. But we are not yet through with this interesting June court. John Bolles is here arraigned, on a like suspicion of being concerned in opening and carrying away those prison doors “that have not yet been found.” For declining, at the time of their disappearance, “to give any reply to inquiries made of him concerning that matter” he has been imprisoned until now. He now pleads “not guilty,” which of itself might mean that he acknowledges no guilt in the matter; but his wife is present to testify that he was at home upon the night of this romantic occurrence, also Esther Waterhouse,[136] “who lodged at John Bolle’s that night,” testifies to the same effect; upon which John Bolles is to be discharged, on payment of costs of prosecution and prison fees. One can but marvel that John Bolles did not in the first place avail himself of this so convenient testimony, and thus escape imprisonment and expense. Also, why were not those noted prison breakers, John Rogers, Sr. and Jr., arraigned, on suspicion of complicity in this matter? Had they no hand in this achievement, or were their tracks so well covered that no slightest clew could be discovered by the authorities? Did John Bolles, knowing he had evidence to clear himself at sitting of the June court, allow himself to be imprisoned on this suspicion, in order to draw attention from the true culprits? Footnote 136: Daughter of John Culver and recently married to John Waterhouse.