Lucius R. Paige, History of Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1630-1877, with a genealogical register

‘ [356] sword by him as he lay in bed; for he suspected a widow woman to send these cats or imps by witchcraft to bewitch him. And one night as he lay in bed, a cat or imp came within his reach, and he struck her on the back; and upon inquiry heard this widow had a sore back; this confirmed his suspicion of the widow, he supposing that it came from the wound he gave the cat. But Mr. Day, the widow's chyrurgeon, cleared the matter, saying this widow came to him and complained of a sore in her back, and because she could not see it desired his help; and he found it to be a boyl, and ripened and healed it as he used to do other boyls. But while this was in cure, the supposed cat was wounded as already rehearsed.’¹

Although we are not certain to whom Mr. Hale refers in the foregoing instances of supposed witchcraft, yet one case did occur, about forty years before he wrote his ‘Modest Enquiry,’ in regard to which a circumstantial account has been preserved. William Holman resided on the northeasterly corner of Garden and Linnaean Streets (where the Botanic Garden now is); he died Jan. 8, 1652-3, aged 59, leaving a widow, Winifred, and several children, among whom was an unmarried daughter, named Mary. On the opposite side of Garden Street, and extending to Sparks Street, was an estate of six acres belonging to John Gibson, whose house was within plain view from Mrs. Holman's. Some ‘root of bitterness’ sprung up between these neighbors, and troubled them, until Mr. Gibson entered a complaint against Mrs. Holman and her daughter as witches, and a warrant of peculiar form was issued for their arrest: ‘To the Constable of Cambridge. You are required forthwith to apprehend the persons of Widow Holman and her daughter Mary, and immediately bring them before the County Court now sitting at Charlestowne, to be examined on several accusations presented, on suspicion of witchcraft; and for witnesses John Gipson and his wife; you are forthwith to bring them away, and not suffer them to speak one with another after their knowledge of this warrant, and hereof you are not to fayle at your perill. Dat. 21 (4) 1659. Thomas Danforth, R. It will be convenient that you charge some meet person to bring away the mayd first, and then you may acquaint the mother also with this warrant respecting her also.’²

No notice of this action appears on the Records of the Court;