The Rogerenes: some hitherto unpublished annals belonging to the colonial history of Connecticut — John Shaqi
The Rogerenes: some hitherto unpublished annals belonging to the colonial history of ConnecticutBolles, John R. (John Rogers)
History
The Rogerenes: some hitherto unpublished annals belonging to the colonial history of Connecticut
Bolles, John R. (John Rogers)
Rogerenes -- History
Further details of their sufferings will be omitted in this place; but
the famous suit of Rev. Gurdon Saltonstall against John Rogers demands
and shall receive dose attention.
It was while Rev. Gurdon Saltonstall was minister of the church of New
London, and through his influence, that John Rogers was expatriated, so
to speak, and mercilessly confined three years and eight months in the
jail at Hartford, “as guilty of blasphemy.” Shortly after his release,
Rev. Mr. Saltonstall brought a suit against John Rogers for defaming his
character. The following is the record of the court:—
At a session of the County Court, held at New London, September 20th,
1698, members of the court, Capt. Daniel Wetherell, esq., Justices
William Ely and Nathaniel Lynde, Mr. Gurdon Saltonstall, minister of
the gospel, plf. pr. contra John Rogers, Sr., def’t, in an action of
the case for defamation.
Whereas you, the said John Rogers, did some time in the month of June
last, raise a lying, false and scandalous report against him, the said
Mr. Gurdon Saltonstall, and did publish the same in the hearing of
diverse persons, that is to say, did, in their hearing, openly declare
that the said Saltonstall, having promised to dispute with you
publicly on the holy Scriptures, did, contrary to his said engagement,
shift or wave the said dispute which he promised you, which said false
report he, the said Saltonstall, complaineth of as to his great
scandal and to his damage unto such value as shall to the said court
be made to appear. In this action the jury finds for the plaintiff
£600 and costs of court £1 10s.
The £600 damages, equal perhaps to $10,000 at the present day, was not
more remarkable than the suit itself, which had no legal foundation.
Lorenzo Dow tells “how to lie, cheat and kill according to law.” But
here is a deed—ought we not to call it a robbery?—done under cover,
without the authority, of law. For the words alleged to have been
spoken, action of slander was not legal. That this may be made clear to
the general reader, we quote the language of the law from Selwyn’s
“Digest”:—
An action on the case lies against any person for falsely and
maliciously speaking and publishing of another, words which directly
charge him with any crime for which the offender is punishable by law.
In order to sustain this action it is essentially necessary that the
words should contain an express imputation of some crime liable to
punishment, some capital offense or other infamous crime or
misdemeanor. An imputation of the mere defect or want of moral
virtues, moral duties, or obligations is not sufficient.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account