Lisa Small wrote: >1. Since people were charged for their own costs of imprisonment even >BEFORE trial, and even if NOT found guilty, perhaps the properties were >seized to pay ongoing incarceration costs? Does this make sense in the >Proctor situation? Were they imprisoned for long? Apparently this was the justification that the heirs of Giles and Martha Corey were given for the threatened seizure of their parents' property (John Moulton, husband of Elizabeth Corey and on behalf of all the heirs in 1710 sued for compensation). The document filed seeking redress reads: " these are to give you a short a Count of our sorrows and suferings which was in the yere 1692 some time in march our honerd father and mother Giles Corey & Martha his wife ware acused for soposed wich Craft and imprisoned and ware Removed from on prison to another as from Salem to ipswich & from ipswitch to boston and from boston to Salem againe and soe remained in Close imprisonment about four months we were att the whole Charge of their maintenance which was very Chargable and soe much the more being soe farr a distance from us as also by Reason of soe many removes in all which wee Could doe noe less than Acompanie them. which further added both to our trouble and Charge and although that was very Great is the least of our greavence or cause of Thease lines but that which breakes our hearts and for which wee goe mourning still is that our father was put to soe Cruell and painfull a death as being prest to death our mother was put to death also though in another way. " And as wee Cannot sufficiantly Express our Griffe for the loss of our father and mother in such away -- soe we cannot Compute our Exspences and Coast but Shall Comite to your wisdome to judge of but after our fathers death the sh'rife thretened to Size our fathers Estate and for feare thar of wee Complied with him and paid him Eleaven pound six shillings in monie by all which we have bee[n] greatly damnified & impovershd by being Exsposed to sell Creaturs and other things for litle more than half the worth of them, to get the monie to pay as afores'd and to maintaine our father & mother in prison but that Which is grieveous to us is that wee are not only impoverished but also Reproached and soe may bee to all generatians and that wrongfully two unless something bee done for the removeall thereof all which we humbly Committe to the honorable Court Praying God to direct to that which may bee axceptable in his sight and for the good of this land" So it seems that Giles' efforts (whether by transferring his property to his sons-in-lsw or by refusing to plead) kept his property from being seized outright, but the sheriff did *try* to seize it. It also seems that unnecessary expenses were incurred by transferring the prisoners several times. What's not clear to me is *when* the attempt to seize the property occurred, before or after the deaths of Giles and Martha. Lisa also wrote: >2. Even in modern times, and despite the U.S. Constitution's guarantees >against unreasonable seizures without due process of law, properties are >still routinely seized before trial. I'm inclined to think that this practice was the reason that Giles Corey was writing out a conveyance right after he was arrested. It's called a will, but it's really more than that--it states, "In Consideration of which and for ye fatherly Love & affection wch I have & doe beare unto my beloved sone in Law William Cleeves of ye town of Beaverly, in ye abovesd Countye and to my sone in Law Jno Moulton of ye town of Salem in sd County both yeomen as also for divers other good causes & Considerations mee att ye prsent Espetially moveing, Have Given, Granted and by these prsents doe Give Grant and Confirm unto ye said Willm Cleeves my sone in Law & to ye said Jno Moulton my full power strength and auctority to occupie possesse & enjoye & manage in my stead & place all my Land & Meadow lying & being in ye bounds of Salem town aforesd, & being Butted & bound as p. my deed doth appeare & all my neat cattle & all other my stocke upon sd Farme or elsewhere as Likewise all my howsing & all my moveable estate whatsoever or wheresoever found wth all ye prviledges and apprtenance thereunto belonging or in wise apprtaining in my stead & for my use & supply during my natural life And after my decease" etc. as may be seen at the URL cited by Margo (thank you, Margo!). So on 25 July 1692, the Corey property was conveyed to the sons-in-law. This relates to my earlier question concerning Giles Corey's reason for refusing to plead. If the property had already been conveyed to his sons-in-law, there was no need to use the strategem of not pleading in order to save the proerty from being seized. (and in fact, the sheriff tried other means to justify seizing the property). So, why did Giles Corey refuse to plead? Sheer cussedness? Also, do I understand correctly that the judge named Corwin and the sherriff named Corwin were related? Francine Nicholson _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_smartspamprotection_3mf