In explanation of the import of this testimony, it is to be observed, that the estate of Benjamin Houlton was contiguous to that of Francis Nurse.  They were separated by a fence, which, as in such cases, was required for half its length to be kept in order by one party, the remaining half by the other.  What the exact facts were cannot be ascertained, as we have the story of one side only.  The widow Houlton appears to have been a tender-hearted, and, for aught we know, good woman.  Some years afterwards, she was married, as his second wife, to Benjamin Putnam,—­a very respectable person, and, on the death of his father Nathaniel, the head of that branch of the family.  He was, for many years, deacon of the church.  But she was, it must be conceded, a prejudiced witness; and her judgment for the time was wholly beclouded by the prevalent superstitions.  The garden had been, from the days of Townsend Bishop, a choice portion of the Nurse estate.  In all farms, it was a most important and valuable item; and was generally under the special care and management of the wife, daughters, and younger lads of the husbandman.  Rebecca Nurse was an efficient helpmeet; contributing her whole share to the success of the great enterprise of clearing the estate, as well as in bringing up and educating a large family.  It was, no doubt, very provoking to her, as it would be to any one, to have vegetable and flower beds devastated by the ravages of a neighbor’s stray pigs.  To what extent her “railing and scolding” went, she was not allowed to contribute her statement, to enable us to judge.  The affair probably produced considerable gossip, and seems to be alluded to in Nathaniel Putnam’s certificate in behalf of Rebecca Nurse.  There is reason to believe that the widow Houlton was one of the first to realize what great injustice had been done by her and others to the good name of Rebecca Nurse.

Notwithstanding this evidence, so deeply were the jury impressed with the eminent virtue and true Christian excellence of this venerable woman, that, in spite of the clamors of the outside crowd, the monstrous statements of accusing witnesses, and the strong leaning of the Court against her, the jury brought in a verdict of “Not guilty.”  Calef, and Hutchinson after him, describe the effect, and what followed:—­

“Immediately, all the accusers in the Court, and, suddenly after, all the afflicted out of Court, made an hideous outcry; to the amazement, not only of the spectators, but the Court also seemed strangely surprised.  One of the judges expressed himself not satisfied:  another of them, as he was going off the bench, said they would have her indicted anew.  The chief-justice said he would not impose on the jury, but intimated as if they had not well considered one expression of the prisoner when she was upon trial; viz., that when one Hobbs, who had confessed herself to be a witch, was brought into Court to witness against her, the prisoner, turning her head to her, said, ’What! do you bring her?  She is one of us;’ or words to that effect.  This, together with the clamors of the accusers, induced the jury to go out again, after their verdict, ‘Not guilty.’”

The foreman of the jury, Thomas Fisk, made this statement on the 4th of July, a few days after the trial:—­