The Cucking Stool. 75 
convicted at the Sessions for a scold, and adjudged to be ducked.” 
She brought a writ of error, and in another Report of the same 
transaction, in Trinity Term, 3 Anne (6 Mod. Rep. p. 178,) it is 
said that she was convicted by the Justices of the Peace, at the 
Quarter Sessions at Maidstone, upon an indictment for being a 
common scold, and judgment given, that she should be ducked. 
Whereupon she brought a writ of error (Id. p. 213,) and on a sub- 
sequent day, an application was made to dispense with her personal 
attendance in the Court of Queen’s Bench, to assign error, as she 
was so ill, that without danger to her life, she could not come up 
out of Kent, where she lived. The Court say, “Scolding once or 
twice is no great matter, for scolding alone is not the offence, but 
the frequent repetition of it, to the disturbance of the neighbour- 
hood, makes it a nuisance, and as such it always has been punish- 
able in the Leet and ideo indictable,” and here they enlarged the 
time till next term, to see how she would behave herself in the 
mean time. And Lord Holt said, “ducking would rather harden 
than cure her, and if she were once ducked, she would scold on all 
the days of her life.” In Michaelmas Term, (1704,) her husband 
and she came into court that they might assign error, which 
they did, and on a subsequent day in this same Michaelmas Term 
(Id. 239,) the judgment of the Quarter Sessions at Maidstone, was 
reversed by the Court of Queen’s Bench, “the indictment being 
for that she was Communis Riva instead of Rixatriz.”’ 
The Record of Mrs. Saxby’s second case still remains among the 
Records of the Court of Queen’s Bench, of Michaelmas Term, 3 
Anne, (1703.) It states an indictment found at the Kent Quarter 
Sessions, at Maidstone, “die Martis in prima septimané post festum 
sci. Michis. Arch’, scil: quinto die Octobris, 2 Anne;” “against 
Hanna uxor: Joseph Saxby de Westerham in com. pred. Mercer,” 
which charged her with being “Communis Riva.” It then states 
her plea of not guilty at the same Sessions, and that the Jury found 
her guilty, and the judgment against her is in the following form: 
“Tdeo considerat’ est p. Cur. hic qd. pd. Hanna p. transgy’ offens’ et 
malegestur’ pd. apud poch de Westerham pd. in com. pd. die 
mercurii tcio die May px’ futur’ in quoddam Sedile ligneum [anglicé. 
Li 2 
