Records_ (2: 224).

ELIZABETH GARLICK. Easthampton, 1658. Acquitted.

_Records Particular Court_ (2 :113); _Colonial Records of Connecticut_
(1: 573); STILES' _History of Windsor_ (p. 735).

Account in previous chapter.

NICHOLAS and MARGARET JENNINGS. Saybrook, 1661.

Jury disagreed.

The major part of the jury found Nicholas guilty, but the rest only
strongly suspected him, and as to Margaret, some found her guilty, and
the others suspected her to be guilty. It is probable that the Jennings
were under inquiry when, at a session of the General Court at Hartford,
June 15, 1659, it was recorded that "Mr. Willis is requested to goe
downe to Sea Brook, to assist ye Maior in examininge the suspitions
about witchery, and to act therin as may be requisite." _Records
Particular Court_ (2: 160-3); _Colonial Records of Connecticut_ (1: 338).

1662-63 was a notable year in the history of witchcraft in Connecticut.
It marked the last execution for the crime within the commonwealth, and
thirty years before the outbreak at Salem.

NATHANIEL GREENSMITH and REBECCA his WIFE. Hartford, 1662. Both
executed.

Account in previous chapter. _Records Particular Court_ (2: 182);
_Memorial History Hartford County_ (1: 274); _Connecticut Magazine_
(November 1899, pp. 557-561).

MARY SANFORD. Hartford, 1662. Convicted June 13, 1662. Executed.

_Records Particular Court_ (2: 174-175); HOADLEY'S _Record Witchcraft
Trials_.

ANDREW SANFORD. Hartford, 1662. No indictment.

_Records Particular Court_ (2: 174-175); HOADLEY'S _Record Witchcraft
Trials_.

JUDITH VARLETT (VARLETH). Hartford, 1662. Arrested; released.

It will be recalled that Rebecca Greensmith in her confession, among
other things, said that Mrs. Judith Varlett told her that she (Varlett)
"was much troubled wth ye Marshall Jonath: Gilbert & cried, & she sayd
if it lay in her power she would doe him a mischief, or what hurt shee
could."

Judith must have indulged in other indiscretions of association or of
speech, since she soon fell under suspicion of witchcraft, and was put
under arrest and imprisoned. But she had a powerful friend at court
(who, despite his many contentions and intrigues, commanded the
attention of the Connecticut authorities), in the person of her
brother-in-law Peter Stuyvesant, then bearing the title and office of
"Captain General and Commander-in-Chief of Amsterdam In New Netherland,
now called New York, and the Dutch West India Isl