“STEPHEN HART
“JOSIAH WlLLARD
“DANIEL PRATT.”

MRS. MIGAT—­A warm greeting, “how doe yow”—­“god was naught”—­“Hell need not be feared, for she should not burn in ye fire”—­The ghost “stracke"

“Mrs. Migat sayth she went out to give her calues meat, about fiue weekes since, & goodwif Segr came to her and shaked her by ye arme, & sd she how doe yow, how doe yow, Mrs. Migatt.

“2d Mrs. Migatt alsoe saith:  a second time goodwife Segr came her towerds ye little riuer, a litle below ye house wch she now dweleth in, and told her, that god was naught, god was naught, it was uery good to be a witch and desired her to be one, she should not ned fare going to hell, for she should not burne in ye fire Mrs. Migat said to her at this time that she did not loue her; she was very naught, and goodwif Segr shaked her by ye hands and bid her farwell, and desired her, not to tell any body what shee had said unto her.

“3d Time.  Mrs. Migat affirmeth yt goodwife Segr came to her at ye hedge corner belonging to their house lot, and their spake to her but what she could not tell, wch caused Mrs. Migatt (as she sayth) to (turn) away wth great feare.

“Mrs. Migat sayth a little before ye floud this spring, goodwife Segr came into thaire house, on a mone shining night, and took her by ye hand and stracke her on ye face as she was in beed wth her husband, whome she could wake, and then goodwife Segr went away, and Mrs. Migat went to ye dore but darst not looke out after her.

“These pticulers Mrs. Migat charged goodwife Segr wth being face to face, at Mr. Migats now dwelling house.”

“John Talcott.”

Staggerings of the jury—­“Shuffing”—­“Grinding teeth”—­Seager’s denials—­Contradictions—­Acquittal

“Janur 16 1662

“The causes why half the jury ore more did in their vote cast gooddy Seger (and the rest of the jury were deeply suspitious, and were at a great loss and staggeringe whereby they were sometimes likely to com up in their judgments to the rest, whereby she was allmost gone and cast as the foreman expressed to her at giuing in of the verdict) are these

“First it did apeare by legall euidence that she had intimat familliarity with such as had been wiches, viz goody Sanford and goody Ayrs. 2ly this she did in open court stoutly denie saing the witnesses were preiudiced persons, and that she had now more intimacy then they themselves, and when the witneses questioned with her about frequent being there she said she went to lerne to knitt; this also she stoutly denied, and said of the witneses they belie me, then when Mr. John Allen sd did she not teach you to knitt, she answered sturdily and sayd, I do not know that I am bound to tell you & at another time being pressed to answ she sayd, nay I will hould what I have if I must die, yet after this she confessed that she had so much intimacy with one of ym as that they did change woorke one with another. 3ly she having sd that