Meantime, in the colony some uncertainty had arisen as to the meaning of 
the jury verdict for running a division line between Providence and Pawtuxet 
purchases. The line drawn by the Providence men not being acceptable 
to the court, the former jury was summoned to explain the meaning of its 
verdict. As the Rhode Island commissioners and jurors refused to participate 
in this procedure, the commissioners decided to leave the final determination 
to the King in Council. 334 In addition, obstructions were encountered in enforcing 
the other judgments. 335 
Thereupon, Harris again set forth for England where he petitioned the 
Council for final determination of his complaint. 336 Harris prayed the privilege 
of a subject of England to commence suit outside the corporation of which 
he was resident in the higher royal court for a more competent trial. 337 The 
Committee reported that distance and absence of parties rendered unfeasible 
such judgment. Therefore, it was recommended that the governor and magistrates 
of the New Plymouth colony be authorized to examine the Warwick- 
Pawtuxet claims and report thereon to the Privy Council. This was accordingly 
ordered; Rhode Island was also warned to execute the four remaining judgments 
within three months of notice or have the New Plymouth commissioners 
act therein. 338 
The Warwick rehearings before the New Plymouth commissioners in 
October, 1679, terminated favorably for Harris, 339 but execution in this and the 
other causes was prevented by the inability of Harris and the special marshal 
to agree upon the lands to be seized in execution. 340 Harris then decided upon 
further application to the King, but en route to England this relentless litigant 
was captured by pirates, and he died before taking any steps for relief. 341 
Later petitions for execution of the judgments were uniformly unsuccessful. 342 
Another instance of an appeal to the King in a jurisdictional controversy is 
found in Major John Fenwick's attempts to exercise powers of government 
in West New Jersey under an alleged patent from Lord Berkeley. 343 Upon 
presentment at a January, 1676/7, Special Court of Assizes held in New York 
334 Harris Papers, 228-33, 2 38~45, 250-65. 
For the order to run the dividing line see 15 
Early Rec. Town Prov., 174. 
335 Harris Papers, 237, 
336 Ibid., 267-73. 
337 Ibid., 271. 
338 PC 2/68/159; CSP, Col, 1677-80, #1026, 
1044, 1056. Earlier in July, 1667 Col. Nicolls 
had recommended this procedure (3 Doc. Rel. 
Col. Hist. N.Y., 159). 
339 Harris Papers, 314-17. The governor and 
magistrates also represented that the former 
commissioners had acted within the scope of 
their authority in adjudicating the Warwick 
claims. For the plea of Harris see ibid., 299- 
308. For the answer of Holden and Greene 
for Warwick see ibid., 308-14. 
340 Ibid., 278-97; compare ibid., 347-50. 
Two members of the court protested against 
John Smith's being marshal, on the score of 
partiality to the Warwick interests (ibid., 
318-19). No execution issued against Calverly 
et al., since the former commissioners had adjudged 
the action against Calverly included in 
the action against Harrud {ibid., 297). 
Sil lbid., 322-25, 328; cf. CSP, Col, 1677-80, 
#1487. 
342 Harris Papers, 346-47, 353-55, 360-62, 
364-67; 2 APC, Col, #980. 
343 See 1 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. NJ., 187 et