pretensions. 128 The Board of Trade, however, perceiving that the acts trenched 
upon the rights of particular persons, consulted the Attorney General, 129 who 
rendered an opinion that both acts should be disallowed. 130 Upon a Board of 
Trade representation advising disallowance of the two acts, 131 an Order in 
Council issued accordingly. 132 Thus, an attempt of the colonial legislative 
branch to interfere in judicial matters was as lacking in success as the attempts 
made by Allen through the Board of Trade. 
During these various proceedings the inhabitants of the province showed 
little evidence of willingness to countenance the proprietary claims, making 
recourse to legal remedies mandatory. 133 In preparation of his case Allen 
sought out the judgments obtained and the evidence presented in the trials had 
by Robert Mason, but found the colony records mutilated so that no aid could 
be had from former judgments. 134 Allen, persevering regardless, commenced 
an action against Richard Waldron in the August, 1704, session of the Superior 
Court, where it was agreed by the parties that a full trial to effect should be 
held in the February, 1704/5, session. 135 Governor Dudley, favoring the Allen 
claims, assured Allen that he would attend the trial to insure that matters 
would-be found specially. 136 Unfortunately for the plaintiff, Governor Dudley 
was unable to attend the trial in March, 1704/5, when the case was committed 
to the jury with a copy of the Queen's order for a special verdict, but the jury 
obstinately returned a general verdict for the defendant with costs. 137 It was 
alleged that despite the motion of Allen's counsel and the demand of Lieutenant-Governor 
Usher, the judges refused to direct the jury to find specially 
according to the Queen's order. 138 From the court minute book it appears that 
Allen did not move for a special verdict until after the verdict was read. Wal- 
128 See 3 Doc. and Rec. Rel. Prov. N.H., 226, 
228. 
129 CSP, Col, 1702-3, #942 
lso lbid., #1007. 
131 The Act for the Confirmation of Town 
Grants was represented as very undue and 
not fit to be allowed, since it confirmed land 
grants by towns without saving possible prior 
proprietary rights while the controversies in 
course of law between the proprietor and the 
inhabitants, relating to the rights the former 
had always claimed, were still depending 
{ibid., #1214). 
182 pq 2/79/453. As to the reception of the 
news of the disallowance, see CSP, Col., 
1704-5, PP- 273-74. 
133 Cf. Governor Dudley who in July, 1704, 
wrote that Allen had again begun actions 
against several inhabitants, although many 
people every day submitted and took leases 
from him {ibid., p. 218). 
134 3 Doc. and Rec. Rel. Prov. N.H., 297-99; 
CSP, Col., 17045, p. 53. For conjecture as 
to the culprit, see Fry, op. cit., 228. 
135 CSP, Col., 1704-5, P- 274. 
136 Dudley was of the opinion that if judgment 
were once given by Her Majesty in 
Council against one tenant, the whole province 
would submit; he lamented that, "I may not 
passe the formes of Law in favour of Col. 
Allin, least he loose his cause at home, as he 
hath done already, nor can I alter any of the 
Judges unless upon a plaine breach and injustice, 
as H.M. Instructions command me" 
{ibid.). 
137 Lieutenant-Governor Usher stated that no 
other result could be expected, since the judges 
and jurors were persons who had given Waldron 
money to defend his case {CSP, Col., 
17045, #982). 
138 Ibid.