the future it should be left to the determination of the law. These towns based their hopes of avoiding in the future any expense on account of Mistick bridge upon the late law above referred to; how vain were their hopes will be hereinafter shown.
In 1698 the town of Medford
was again complained of for defects in the northerly half of Mistick bridge, and it voted ‘to empower a lawyer, referring to answer a presentment for defect in Mistick bridge.’
March 8, 1698. ‘Lieut. Peter Tufts
, Stephen Francis
, and Thomas Willis
, appear in Court, to answer for defects in the north end of Mistick bridge, and inform the Court
that their part of the bridge is in good repair, and that the defect is in the part appertaining to Reading, Woburn
, and Malden
, whereupon the Court
order that those towns appear and show reason why they should not repair their part of said bridge according to former usage.’
The town of Medford
, fearing that its interests might be imperilled at this time, voted, March 28, 1698, ‘to empower Mr. John Leverett
for the further defending the town, referring to Mistick bridge, in case there be need.’
April 8, 1698.
The County Court
again say: ‘The northerly half of Medford
, alias Mistick, bridge having been presented to the Court
as defective and dangerous, and the respective towns of Woburn
, Reading, and Maiden, that were formerly and from time to time wont to repair the same, having been summoned to appear in Court and show cause why said part of said bridge, should not be repaired by them according to former usage, and the said towns having been heard, the Court
order that the said towns make speedy and sufficient repairs on said northerly half of said bridge, in proportion according to former usage, upon penalty of Five pounds fine, for each towns default, and that they make returns to this Court.
, and Reading appeal.’