vain for a year to effect an agreement with the opposition under the terms of 
the commission, he brought actions against many of the principals. 283 In a 
trial in November, 1683, Richard Waldron, as defendant, limited his efforts to 
some preliminary maneuvers, emphasizing the importance of the trial to the 
inhabitants of the province 204 and introducing no evidence in support of his 
title; consequently judgment was given for plaintiff Mason. 265 Apparently 
in all the other actions brought by Mason no evidence was produced in behalf 
of the various defendants, and judgment was almost always for Mason. 260 It 
was alleged that issue was not joined with Mason in these trials, not only because 
of the partiality of judges and jurors but also because of a willingness 
to attend the methods prescribed in the royal commission. 207 
Many of the judgments in Mason's favor availed him not, because execution 
was defeated by show of force. 268 In at least one instance an appeal to 
the King in Council was demanded and granted, 209 but this lapsed, since no 
263 Ibid., 591-92. To permit such actions was 
seemingly contrary to the terms of Cranfield's 
commission, but not unexpected in the light 
of his expressed views on the subject. 
264 Waldron objected against the whole impanelled 
jury as being persons who lived in 
the province and owned Mason to be proprietor 
thereof. Each juryman made oath of his lack 
of interest in the cause. Whereupon Waldron, 
in contempt of the court, harangued the 
audience that his case concerned them all 
and that if he were cast, all would become 
tenants of Mason (1 Doc. and Rec. Rel. Prov. 
N.H., 503-4); see also ibid., 540. 
265 Ibid., 504, 515, note; Samuel Allen MSS. 
266 Walter Barefoot, council member and judge 
of the Court of Pleas, swore that "in all the 
trials the Proprietor hath had, not any one 
man hath produced any Deed, Evidence or 
Record to make a title of land" (1 Doc. and 
Rec. Rel. Prov. N.H., 504, 514-15, note; cf. 
the certificate of Richard Chamberlain, province 
secretary, Samuel Allen MSS). In the 
action against John Woodman at Great Island 
in December, 1683, defendant pleaded in bar; 
(1) that it was unreasonable that those who 
had declared their opinions in the controversy 
and who had recovered land claimed through 
Mason could be impartial jurors; (2) that 
Coke, Second Institute, c. 12, p. 157, gave a 
challenge of jurors who had land depending 
on the same title as the land in controversy; 
(3) that by 27 Elizabeth, c. 6, s. 2, jurors 
returned should have estates of freehold to 
the clear yearly value of at least, which 
not many of the jurors had; (4) that the 
proceeding was not according to the governor's 
commission (3 MS Mass. Archives [Colonial, 
1629-1720], 465 a). 
267 A statement of Nathaniel Weare; see 1 
Doc. and Rec. Rel. Prov. N.H., 514. A standing 
jury is alleged to have tried most of the 
actions {ibid., 538, 576-77; see also ibid., 
521). Against the judges it was alleged that 
several pleas had been refused, and defendants 
told that the bench would not make 
record for them by entering their pleas; that 
the courts refused to read 27 Elizabeth, c. 6, 
s. 2, Coke, Second Institute, c. 12, p. 156, and 
other statutes (1 Doc. and Rec. Rel. Prov. 
N.H., 538). For the form of the objection 
based on 27 Elizabeth, c. 6, s. 2, see 8 Coll. 
N.H. Hist. Soc, 320. Since the substance of 
the statute is misrepresented, it is not surprising 
to find the plea rejected. Secretary 
Richard Chamberlain certified that upwards 
of thirty-six persons had been sworn as jurors 
in the various actions by Mason who had 
formerly sat on like actions, that such of the 
jurors as were excepted against were sworn 
upon a voire dire that they should not have 
profit or loss in the cause (Samuel Allen 
MSS.). In the light of earlier clamors against 
the method provided by royal commission the 
defendants ought in equity to have been 
estopped from raising the point of variance. 
268 17 N.H. State Papers, 592; 1 Doc. and 
Rec. Rel. Prov. N.H., 515, note. 
269 Ibid., 504, 538, 541. The appeal was from 
a November 6, 1683, judgment rendered by 
Barefoot, Fryer, and Greene.