security to prosecute the appeal and stand the award was given. 27o Mason also made public declarations that in every trial had he would waive the benefit of the judgment, suspend execution, and enter into a new trial in any of the King's Courts in Westminster Hall, provided security to pay damages was advanced within a month. 271 This offer failed to bring forth the desired results. 272 However, not all the land title trials in the province issued favorably for Mason or those claiming under him. In Walton v. Watford and in Barefoot v. Wadleigh, both decided in February, 1682/3, juries showed a partiality opposed to any recognition of Mason's claims. 273 Even when no evidence was introduced by one defendant, the jurors found for him. 274 Appeals to the King in Council were taken in both causes, defendants summoned, and Edward Randolph was authorized to prosecute both appeals. 275 Both respondents petitioned the Council for a hearing, and their petitions were referred to the Committee. 276 Since appellants failed to appear before the Lords Committee in either appeal, it was reported and approved by the Council Board 270 The reasons why no security was forthcoming differ. Barefoot swore that the appeal was granted provided security be given, but that none of the respondents (Vaughan, Waldron, Weare, Cutt) appeared to give security, which was ordered to be done in open court {ibid., 504); compare ibid., 538, where the blame for the failure to give security is placed on Mason and the provincial secretary. By statutory provisions it would appear that the appeal from this judgment should have been made to the Court of Appeal consisting of the Assembly and the President and Council (1 Laws of N.H., 24, 38). 271 Some confusion exists as to the exact nature of this offer. Two such offers mention only a new trial in any of his Majesty's courts in Westminster Hall either in the Easter or Trinity terms next ensuing (1 Doc. and Rec. Rel. Prov. N.H., 475; 29 N.H. State Papers, 131). Barefoot and Cranfield, in their versions of the offer, mention the alternative of a hearing before the King in Council (1 Doc. and Rec. Rel. Prov. N.H., 504; 17 N.H. State Papers, 595). Also, Barefoot makes the offer contingent upon an appeal being taken by defendant from a judgment for Mason (1 Doc. and Rec. Rel. Prov. N.H., 504). Cranfield states that Mason, finding no appeals were being taken, made his offer (17 N.H. State Papers, 595). The date of the appeal which was taken and lapsed (supra, p. 117) was November 6, 1683. The date of one offer of Mason is put questionably at October 15, 1683 (1 Doc. and Rec. Rel. Prov. N.H., 475); the other is dated December 5, 1683 (29 N.H. State Papers, 131). 272 17 N.H. State Papers, 595. 273 In Barefoot v. Wadleigh, appellant, in possession of land under both a Massachusetts Bay grant and a sale from Mason's agent, sold the land in 1669 to Wadleigh, who in 1671 released all title thereto to appellant, to whom he was heavily indebted, in consideration of a general release. But Wadleigh, by favor of the Massachusetts Bay government, remained in possession, and Barefoot could obtain no relief. In February, 1682/3, Barefoot brought an action for recovery of the land and damages; the jury found for Wadleigh (CSP, Col., 1681-8;, #1012). In Walton v. Walford, appellant claimed land by virtue of a grant from Mason confirming a former grant of Mason's agent. The defendants pretended a town grant of 1658 for some of the lands, though never improved. The jury, all possessing lands by virtue of town grants derived from the authority of Massachusetts Bay, found against Walton (ibid., #1013). 274 Wadleigh showed no title and made no defense, but simply impressed upon the jury the significance of his case for their own interests (ibid., #1012). 275 40 N.H. State Papers, 389-90; CSP, Col., 1681-85, #1012 XIII, XIV; #1013 11, 111. 276 PC 2/70/34, 48. Wadleigh acted as attorney for respondents in Walton v. Walford (CSP, Col, 1681-85, #i"l).