Medford Historical Society Papers, Volume 3.

The defendant towns claimed before the Court of Appeal that they were not by law compelled to assist in the repairing of Mistick bridge, and referred to a law passed by the General Court in 1693 compelling towns to choose, annually, one or more surveyors of highways, who should take care that all highways, private ways, causeys, and bridges lying within the limits of such towns, should be kept in repair at the expense of the town wherein they were situated; it was provided, however, that this law should only apply to cases where it was not otherwise settled.

The decision of the Court was, that in the case of Mistick bridge the law of 1693 did not apply, as it had been otherwise settled as to how said bridge should be repaired, and the defendant towns were obliged to submit.

Dec. 26, 1701. ‘The Selectmen of Woburn appear in Court to answer to their presentment for deficientcy in the northerly part of Mistick bridge in which they were concerned, and say that they do not deny to mend the bridge, the Court thereupon order that the towns of Woburn, Reading and Malden do mend said bridge, and make it safely passable and to perfect the same, and make it sufficient by the next term of Court, and report their doings on the same, upon penalty of five pounds for each of said towns default.’

Dec. 15, 1702. ‘The Selectmen of Woburn, Reading and Malden appear in court and say the north end of Mistick bridge is repaired and safe.’

Jan. 16, 1704-5. ‘One of the Selectmen of Woburn appeared in Court to answer to a presentment by the Grand Jury concerning a defect in the northerly half of Mistick bridge, and informed the Court that the greatest defect in the said north end of said bridge, is not in their part thereof, and if their part is not in such good repair as it should be, yet they will do it as soon as the season will permit.’

Sept. 18, 1705. ‘It was ordered that Eleazer Wyer ’