Hutchinson mentions a case of witchcraft in Hartford, in 1662, where some women were accused, and, after being proceeded against until they were confounded and bewildered, one of them made the most preposterous confessions, which ought to have satisfied every one that her reason was overthrown; three of them were condemned, and one, certainly,—­probably all,—­executed.  In 1669, he says that Susanna Martin, of Salisbury,—­whom we shall meet again,—­was bound over to the Court on the same charge, “but escaped at that time.”  Another case is mentioned by him as having occurred, in 1671, at Groton, in which the party confessed, and thereby avoided condemnation.  In 1673, a case occurred at Hampton; but the jury, although, as they said, there was strong ground of suspicion, returned a verdict of “Not guilty;” the evidence not being deemed quite sufficient.  There were several other cases, about this time, in which some persons were severely handled in consequence of being reputed witches; and others suffered, as they imagined, “under an evil hand.”

In this immediate neighborhood, there had been several attempts, previous to the delusion at Salem Village in 1692, to get up witchcraft prosecutions, but without much success.  The people of this county had not become sufficiently infected with the fanaticism of the times to proceed to extremities.

In September, 1652, the following presentment was made by the grand jury:—­

“We present John Bradstreet, of Rowley, for suspicion of having familiarity with the Devil.  He said he read in a book of magic, and that he heard a voice asking him what work he had for him.  He answered, ’Go make a bridge of sand over the sea; go make a ladder of sand up to heaven, and go to God, and come down no more.’

     “Witness hereof, FRANCIS PARAT and his wife, of Rowley. 
     “Witness, WILLIAM BARTHOLOMEW, of Ipswich.”

On the 28th of that month, the jury at Ipswich, “upon examination of the case, found he had told a lie, which was a second, being convicted once before.  The Court sets a fine of twenty shillings, or else to be whipped.”

Bradstreet was probably in the habit of romancing, and it was wisely concluded not to take a more serious view of his offences.

In 1658, a singular case of this kind occurred in Essex County.  The following papers relating to it illustrate the sentiments and forms of thought prevalent at that time, and give an insight of the state of society in some particulars:—­

     "To the Honored Court to be holden at Ipswich, this twelfth
     month, ’58 or ’59.