At this June court, John Rogers, Jr., John Bolles, and James Smith (son of Bathsheba) are complained of for preventing the sheriff from arresting and imprisoning John Rogers on March 26. The charge is that these persons “opposed, resisted and abused” the sheriff “by threatening words, pushing, hunching, and laying hands on John Rogers,” as said sheriff and the constable were apprehending him. A jury having been demanded and by good fortune accorded, a verdict of “not guilty” is rendered, and they are discharged. This shows the method of defence used by the Rogerenes on this occasion. They surrounded their leader, forming a human wall about him, and kept this position in spite of the efforts of sheriff and constable to lay hands upon him.
Although no reply is returned to the message which the authorities of New York have sent to the authorities at New London, in behalf of John Rogers, this proof of friendliness on the part of New York dignitaries towards the refugee from Connecticut, and their evident knowledge that this refugee had been imprisoned on false pretences, has so salutary an effect, that when, after a stay of three months in New York, the nonconformist boldly returns to New London, no attempt is made at reimprisonment.
This indomitable man immediately makes a move to prosecute the judge and justices of the County Court who, in June of the preceding year, not only tried in New London a case of “man-stealing,” pretended to have been committed within the jurisdiction of Long Island, but tried a case of this serious nature—even capital upon the law book—without a jury. He must be well aware that such protest on his part is not only likely to be very expensive but wholly ineffectual. Back of this judge and these justices, stands Governor Saltonstall; moreover, any blame attaching to them would attach equally to the governor from having so signally punished the man who had declared against the illegal proceedings of the court at the time. Yet he makes the appeal manfully. Those who have heard the previous circumstances will hear also of the vain effort for justice, and this itself may help to weaken the despotic rule of an ecclesiastical clique.
In May of this year, at the session of the General Court, the judge and justices of the County Court appear, to answer to the above charges; John Rogers having, by repeated efforts, secured this much of attention. (See his account, Part I., Chapter V.) The defendants stand mainly upon objections regarding time and form of the Petition, on the part of the plaintiff. They say there was nothing in John Roger’s petition that showed any appearance of maladministration, and that, had there been any ground for his complaint, it did not come within the time limited by law. This shifting from the main ground to technical points, with denial of any importance to be attached to the significant charges (lack of jury and wrong jurisdiction), call for legal knowledge and adroit argument regarding minor points of the law, by way of evading the question of vital importance. In short, the case is, by legal device, taken away from the plaintiff at the start. As a show of justice, the court offers the plaintiff legal counsel; not to decide whether this case should have been tried where, and as, it was tried, but mainly whether the plaintiff’s petition was within the time specified by law. Every difficulty possible had been placed in his way to retard the case, doubtless with this very end in view. The plaintiff refuses to make any reply, since he can reply to nothing but legal evasions. It being proven to the satisfaction of this court that John Rogers has nothing to complain of, he is ordered to pay the expenses of the judge and justices for their attendance on the court.