rected as to a special verdict, found generally for defendant with costs of 
court. 147 Upon motion of plaintiff the jury was again sent out, but returned 
the same verdict; thereupon judgment was given accordingly. 148 Plaintiff 
then moved for an appeal to the Superior Court of Judicature, which was 
granted, security being given. l 49 On the hearing of the appeal in August, 
1707, at the Superior Court of Judicature, where in accordance with New 
England practice a jury was used on appeal, the jury found for the defendant 
a confirmation of the judgment below and costs. 150 Although sent out again 
with directions further to consider the case and to observe the royal instructions 
as to finding specially, the jury returned the same verdict and judgment was 
accordingly entered. 151 Allen's counsel then moved for an appeal to the Queen 
in Council, which was granted. 152 A petition for hearing the appeal was 
presented to the Council in June, 1708, and referred to the Committee. 153 In 
December of that year the Committee heard the parties fully by their counsel 
and advised affirmance of the judgment below and dismissal of the appeal. 154 
An Order in Council of December 30, 1708, gave executive force to the Committee 
advice. 155 
147 Ibid., 520. For a commentary on the introduction 
of evidence at the trial see CSP, Col., 
1708-g, #663. 
148 2 Doc. and Rec. Rel. Prov. N.H., 520-21, 
556-57- 
li9 lbid., 521. The reasons for appeal of Allen 
and the answer thereto are set out at ibid., 
522-28. It was alleged by respondent that no 
jury could be obliged to give a special verdict 
if they had no doubts as to the law or facts 
involved (ibid., 527). 
150 Ibid., 560. For the evidence introduced by 
the parties see ibid., 528 et seq. 
151 Ibid., 560-61; MS N.H. Sup. Ct. Jud. 
Minute Boo\, i6gg-i7jB, 42-43. Governor 
Dudley stated that he used all possible means 
to have the verdicts found specially, but could 
not obtain it. However, all the papers and pleas 
fairly transcribed were sent home (CSP, Col., 
1706-8, p. 589). See also ibid., 1708-g, #663. 
152 2 j) oc an( i R ec _ R e i p rov 2V.H., 561. A 
bond of /J2OO was ordered given. 
153 PC 2/82/119. For the petition and appeal, 
see PC 1/47. This petition recited that "all 
deeds, writings, papers and evidences produced 
and made use of on both sides at the 
said hearings or tryalls are transmitted and 
now come over under the seale of the said 
province." An August petition to the Council 
related that the Committee appointed to hear 
the appeal a month ago, "but there being 
then no Committee the matter has not bin 
yett heard. That your petitioner has for some 
time bin ready. And the other side who seek 
all manner of delay have had more than sufficient 
notice. That your petitioner's councill 
will in a short time go into the country" (PC 
1/47). In July the Board of Trade made no 
representation on an address to the King by 
the Connecticut General Assembly concerning 
the Allen claim in deference to the pending 
appeal (CSP, Col, 1708-g, #185). 
154 PC 2/82/221. There is no suggestion as 
to the grounds of the Committee report. For 
an indication of the points in issue on appeal, 
see 2 Doc. and Rec. Rel. Prov. N.H., 522-28, 
where the reasons for appeal to the Superior 
Court of Judicature and the answers thereto 
are set forth; for a discussion of the evidence 
submitted on both sides see Fry, op. cit., 
233—38. For a further discussion of the Wheelright 
deed on which Waldron in part based his 
claim (2 Doc. and Rec. Rel. Prov. N.H., 557; 
1 ibid., 56), see John Wheelright (Prince Soc. 
Pub., 1876; ed. C. H. Bell), 79 et seq. 
155 PC 2/82/227. Lieutenant-Governor Usher 
could not credit news of such an outcome to 
the appeal (CSP, Col., 1708-g, #663). Some 
New Hampshire historians have asserted that 
the appeal was never determined. This error, 
probably stemming from a 1753 representation 
of the Board of Trade (29 N.H. State Papers, 
297-98; cf. ibid., 272), is perpetuated by 
Belknap (1 History of New Hampshire [1784