Sewall offers us sufficient proof on this point:  “Decr. 7, 1719.  Mr. Cooper asks my Consent for Judith’s Company; which I freely grant him.”  “Feria Secunda, Octobr. 13, 1729.  Judge Davenport comes to me between 10 and 11 a-clock in the morning and speaks to me on behalf of Mr. Addington Davenport, his eldest Son, that he might have Liberty to Wait upon Jane Hirst [his kinswoman] now at my House in way of Courtship."[230] And it should be noted that the parents of the young man took a keen interest in the matter, and showed genuine appreciation that their son was permitted to court with the full sanction of the lady’s parents.  Thus Sewall records:  “Decr. 11.  I and my Wife visit Mr. Stoddard.  Madam Stoddard Thank’d me for the Liberty I granted her Son [Mr. Cooper] to wait on my daughter Judith.  I returned the Compliment and Kindness."[231]

It might well be conjectured that to toy with a girl’s affections was a serious matter.  If the young man attempted without consent of the young woman’s parents or guardian to make love to her, the audacious youth could be hailed into court, where it might indeed go hard with him.  Thus the records of Suffolk County Court for 1676 show that “John Lorin stood ’convict on his own confession of making love to Mary Willis without her parents consent and after being forwarned by them, L5."[232]

But the lover might have his revenge; for if a stubborn father proved unreasonable and refused to give a cause for not allowing a courtship, the young man could bring the older one into court, and there compel him to allow love to take its own way, or state excellent reasons for objecting.  Thus, in 1646 “Richard Taylor complained to the general Court of Plymouth that he was prevented from marrying Ruth Wheildon by her father Gabriel; but when before the court Gabriel yielded and promised no longer to oppose the marriage."[233]

And then, if the young gallant (may we dare call a Puritan beau that?) after having captured the girl’s heart, failed to abide by his engagement, woe betide him; for into the court he and her father might go, and the young gentleman might come forth lacking several pounds in money, if not in flesh.  The Massachusetts colony records show, for instance, that the court “orders that Joyce Bradwicke shall give unto Alex.  Becke the some of xxs, for promiseing him marriage wthout her frends consent, & nowe refuseing to pforme the same."[234] Again, the Plymouth colony records as quoted by Howard, state that “Richard Siluester, in the behaife of his dautheter, and Dinah Siluester in the behaife of herseife ’to recover twenty pounds and costs from John Palmer, for acteing fraudulently against the said Dinah, in not pforming his engagement to her in point of marriage.’” “In 1735, a woman was awarded two hundred pounds and costs at the expense of her betrothed, who, after jilting her, had married another, although he had first beguiled her into deeding him a piece of land ‘worth L100.’”