Deposition of Samuel Parris, Nathaniel Ingersoll, & Thomas Putnam v. John Procter, Elizabeth Procter, & Sarah Cloyce
Back to PEM: Essex County Court Archives, Vol. 1 | Back to Archive List
Side 1

Small
virginia.edu

Large
virginia.edu

Side 2

Small
virginia.edu

Large
virginia.edu

Source Citation Essex County Court Archives, vol. 1, no. 47, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Judicial Archives, on deposit James Duncan Phillips Library, Peabody Essex Museum, Salem, MA.
Records of the Salem Witch-Hunt (2009) No. 57: Deposition of Samuel Parris, Nathaniel Ingersoll, & Thomas Putnam v. John Procter, Elizabeth Procter, & Sarah Cloyce
    No symbol after the date indicates that the assigned date is certain. This is typically based on the inclusion of the date in the text of the document

    indicates that although there is no date on the document itself, internal references or other evidence make the dating probable

    indicates that there is no original date present in the record itself, and there is a lack of sufficient circumstantial evidence, so the date given is the best approximation
    [?] after the date indicates that a date cannot be established with any level of confidence, and a speculative date or month has been assigned

    See pp. 98-99 of Records of the Salem Witch-Hunt for more information about how dates were assigned.
  • April 11, 1692
  • : Deposition
The Salem Witchcraft Papers (1977) Vol. 2, p. 686: Samuel Parris, Nathaniel Ingersoll, and Thomas Putnam v. John Proctor, Elizabeth Proctor, and Sarah Cloyce
Woodward's Records of Salem Witchcraft (1864) N/A
Godbeer's The Salem Witch Hunt (2011) N/A
Levin's What Happened in Salem? (1960) p. 61: Sam: Parris Nathaniel Ingersoll, and Thomas Putnae v. Jno Proctor.

| Manuscript Archives | Rare Books | Records of the Salem Witch-Hunt | Salem Witchcraft Papers | Woodward | Godbeer | Levin | Search