£2 damages and costs, and judgment was rendered. 303 At an October 9, 1660, 
rehearing the jury found for the defendants £4 and costs of court, not meddling 
with title of property, and judgment was accordingly granted. 304 An 
October 8, 1661, rehearing before the General Court of Trials resulted in a 
further verdict for defendants with their charges and costs of court. 305 
In October, 1662, Harris brought a "bill of indictment" in the General 
Court of Trials against John Harrud and other Warwick proprietors for 
trespass, apparently on the theory that he was prosecuting a forcible entry. 
The grand jury found the bill; after the petty jury had been sworn, those 
indicted pleaded the illegality of the bill because it was not exhibited in the 
King's name. Being found guilty regardless, the defendants prayed the court 
to suspend judgment. The court then referred the matter to the next Court of 
Commissioners to judge the legality of the indictment. 300 This court referred 
the aggrieved parties "to a due course of law for right." However, stating that 
great inconveniences had arisen from trying criminal and civil actions together 
in cases of forcible entry, the court declared that in futuro the actions 
were to be separately considered. First, title was to be tried, then the criminal 
matter. 307 Conceiving the law governing proof of titles contrary to the laws 
of England, Harris then sailed to England for relief, but finding royal commissioners 
about to depart for New England, he took no steps to obtain such 
relief. 308 
In March, 1663/4, Harris sued Harrud for trespass at Mashantatuck in the 
controverted area and was awarded ten shillings damages and costs of court. 309 
Because of popular sympathy with defendant Harrud, it was impossible for 
Harris to secure execution. 310 When Charles IFs commissioners, Carr, Cartwright, 
and Maverick, appeared in Rhode Island, Harrud appealed to them 
to hear the cause, but they postponed action until their return to the colony. 311 
Although the commissioners failed to return to Rhode Island, upon address 
of Harris they recommended the matter to the governor, deputy governor, and 
assistants for full hearing and speedy determination. 312 These referees, declining 
to interfere in a matter judicially determined, in turn referred the 
303 1 Rec. Ct. Trials Col. Prov. Plant. (1920), 
63. 
304 Ibid., 68. The recital by Richman in the 
introduction to the Harris Papers (p. 14) is 
erroneous. 
305 1 Rec. Ct. Trials Col. Prov. Plant. (1920), 
74-75; Harris Papers, 60-61. Andrews erroneously 
states that Harris "brought the case 
before the court of trials and was awarded 
damages" (2 Colonial Period, 63). 
306 2 Rec. Ct. Trials Col. Prov. Plant. (i 9 22). 
11-12. 
307 1 MS RJ. Col. Rec, 170. 
308 Harris Papers, 152-53. 
st>s lbid., 70-71; 2 Rec. Ct. Trials Col. Prov. 
Plant. (1922), 24. A rehearing was attempted 
but then withdrawn {ibid., 31). 
310 Harris Papers, 153-54- 
sll lbid., 153; 2 Rec. Col. RJ., 233. 
312 Ibid., 143, 233; 3 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 
159.