Daniel Epps Tries To Explain

When Daniel Epps testified in his lawsuit against Bennett at the Quarterly Court in Salem, he struggled to explain to the jury why he did not bring Lyonell into his household as he had done with Lyonell’s brother Daniel.  Epps offered multiple excuses: “I would have had him home but…”, “[I] let the Boy Lyonell be with [the old squa in the wigwam] to help her… ”, “My boy Lyonell came home and I did intend he should have stayed alltogether, but….”, and “[the old squa intended to] leave the Boy at home with me, but…” 

Each time Epps tried to explain why he had not given Lyonell a proper Puritan upbringing, somewhere in the background, Daniel was dutifully reciting bible verses and serving his master.  The contrast between the two brothers could not have gone unnoticed.

In original court documents from 1684, John Dent, one of Epps indentured servants, testified that when Okemesw8 and her family first arrived at Castle Hill “his master furnished the Indians with food and clothing and had his servants cut fire wood for them.”[i]  This does not explain how Okemesw8 and LyonelL survived for the next decade near Wigwam Hill about a mile from Epps’ home at Castle Hill.  Dent claimed that “the boy Lionel one time came to live in the house and would have stayed but the squaw was sickly and desired that he return to help her.” 

Epps clarified that the boy stayed with him “about a fortnight [two weeks] or three weakes [sic]”. There was no other occasion when Lyonell lived at Castle Hill with Daniel and Elizabeth Epps.

Leaving their winter wigwam at “The Pines” near Wigwam Hill and walking the mile to the Epps farm at Castle Hill, Okemesw8 and Lyonell could observe Daniel’s servitude. Epps reported his interactions with Okemesw8: “I would supplie her with what might be convinient for them, and accordingly did supplie them with what there necessitie did require and soe I did whilst the young Child [Lyonel] was five or six years old at which time I would have had him home.”

Without referring to Daniel directly, Epps recognized the contrast between Daniel’s assimilation and Lyonell’s comparative freedom.  “I would have had him home” (emphasis added) was one of Epps’ several admissions that he needed to explain to the jury why he had not brought Lyonell into his household at an early age. 

Epps explained “the old Squa being alone and several times scared in the wigwam & did several times come in a sacreful Condition unto our House and was often very sick as wee apprehended unto Death, did let the Boy Lyonell be with her to help her, and carry releife to her.”  Epps’ challenge was that, although he expected Okemesw8 to die, she never did.  He underestimated her.

When Epps learned Bennett “had the boy [Lyonell] by indenture from an old Inidian sqaw,” he asserted that the indenture agreement “was of no more value than as if he should take away one of Bennet’s boys and sell him.” 

Epps declared in his summation before the jury in Salem: “Now if any one stealleing a boy from another and by writting [sic] putting him of to pay there [sic] sonnes Debt or Debts be either Legall or warrantable I think I understand little of Law or Reason.” Epps was a lawyer who frequently appeared in the Quarterly Courts at Salem and Ipswich.  By 1679, when Lyonell signed his agreement with Bennett, Epps had served on seven juries and two grand juries.  He must have believed his dramatic closing would grab the jury’s attention and win their sympathy.

In this closing argument, Epps pivoted from explaining why he never brought Lyonell into his household and focused instead on a debt he claimed Lyonell’s Uncle Robin owed Bennett. How much debt had Bennet forgiven Robin? What was a fair price for what was stolen from Epps? These were not questions answered at the Quarterly Court in Salem, but would be addressed on appeal to the Court of Assistants in Boston.

Epps appealed his defeat in Salem to the Court of Assistants, the highest court in Massachusetts, where his stepfather Samuel Symonds had served for 35 years (1643 – 1678), most recently as Deputy Governor. The outcome of this appeal was an order that “the Indian Boy in Controuersy to be deliuered the Appellant within tenn days time or twenty pounds money & Costs of Courts fiue pounds sixe shillings & three penc” (emphasis added).  There is no record of whether Bennett paid the twenty pounds along with court costs or allowed Epps to remove Lyonell to Castle Hill.

Epps emphasized to the jury that Daniel and Lyonell’s mother requested that he indenture them.  He dramatized for the jury both her pain and his kindness:  “I was constrained out of meer pitty to one in misserie, to send sugar spice candles besides other things of her necessite.”[i] 

Epps provided a vivid description of the agony the mother went through as she died:  “The younger Squa grew worse & worse with the Swelling on her knee, her sinews shrank up soe on the inside of her knee, that her legg turned quite backwards her heele almost Touched her back part of her Bodie, a very Lamentable object to behold.” 

Epps then testified that “the younger Squa was very thankefull to me for all my Charge & trouble about them: and did earnestly desire me to take care of her eldest sonne…  And she further sayde give you my younger sonne, which she intreated me to accept of (whoe was then scarce three quarters of a yeare old).” 

Epps colorful testimony may have captured the jury’s attention – just as it has later historians – but it failed to convince them that the mother’s request was more legitimate than Lyonell’s agreement with Bennett.

Had Daniel Epps taught Lyonel the Bible and the capitol laws as he was required to do? Why had Epps allowed Lyonell to live for a decade with his grandmother outside his family governance? We do not know why the jury found Epps’ claims illegitimate, but there is no question that Epps was out maneuvered at the Salem Court. Bennett won the case.

Bennett presented, not excuses, but a written agreement.  Bennett was fulfilling his responsibilities as laid out in the indenture agreement. 

When the Massachusetts General Court indentured native children to prominent settlers, it was their practice to obtain consent from Praying Indian families.  These families were given the alternative of being shipped out of the Commonwealth as slaves. The purpose of the family agreeing to the indenture was not to give families a choice, but to avoid conflicts between settlers such the conflict between Epps and Bennett. In this case, Bennett had documented family consent.

By 1684, when the appeal reached the Court of Assistants, Lyonel was fifteen years old.  At this point, collecting twenty pounds may have been all that Epps hoped to achieve.  Twenty pounds was a hefty price for an indigenous servant.