presently. 260 Whether the evidence was admitted or not we have no record. But judgment was reversed, and it was adjudged that respondent should not recover against appellant personally in assumpsit. This was without prejudice to suit against appellant as administrator of insolvent intestate Abraham Isaacs. 261 Another jurisdictional category in which all the evidence was included in the record was royal commissions to hear intercolonial boundary disputes. In November, 1740, Francis Wilks is again found warning his principal, Connecticut, in the controversy with the Mohegan Indians that evidence not included in the record transmitted was not admissible before the Council Board. In this instance Connecticut was endeavoring to prove that Commissioners of Review in 1738 had read a judgment given by 1705 commissioners before reversing that judgment. 262 In the Rhode Island-Massachusetts boundary commission appeal Richard Partridge expressed the opinion that the Committee to obtain all the information available might receive records rejected by the commissioners. 263 Yet upon the hearing a map offered in evidence by Massachusetts counsel was rejected by the Committee as not exhibited below tances, in case it was to receive new evidence, would hear a new, and different cause, and upon new, and different evidence then what the courts below heard the same upon; which would put it in every appellants power, to ruin a respondent, by offering new evidence here, which the courts below never received, and which, the respondent, in America, never heard of, nor can he (and, still less, his agents) by any possibility, counterprove, or give any answer whatever to, here; wherefore by the established, and constant, rules of procedure here (without so much as one single instance to the contrary) every attempt to introduce new evidence, has been universally disallowed. The question has, very often, been started in appeals, whether such a piece of evidence was, or was not, read below? It lies upon that party, who would offer it here, if it is objected to as not having been read below, to shew, that it actually was read below; which the appellant cannot do, in this cause; because the respondent has the whole case, under seal, and so certified to be, in the usual manner; which, instead of proving, flatly contradicts, the pretense, and does not contain a single line, of any of the proceedings in that former cause. It may, very possibly, happen that (from Rhode Island) the appellant, may, over, and beside the whole proceedings in the cause, gain the Clerk to give him copies of more and other different papers, also, upon his paying for the same; and such other additional papers may be put, under another, or even under the same, seal, as the real proceedings, which were in the cause, are put under, but that, by no means, makes those additional papers, to be a part of the proceedings, or evidence, in the cause; and its believed, that, by some such management, the appellant may have got a copy made, of the proceedings, in that former cause, and having so got the same, has ventured to assert, that the proceedings, in the former action, were read below, although, the fact is, that they were not read below, and that, as soon as ever they were offered there, they were demurred to, and the record bears testimony, that the court actually rejected, and did not read them, but adjudged them to be impertinent, on the issue, which was joined in the present cause." 260 See infra, pp. 376-77. In Vassall v. Fletcher, from Massachusetts, we also find allegations that affidavits sworn to after a hearing on a writ of review were inserted in the record (Case of Appellant [L.C., Law Div.]; Add. MS, 36,217/44). 261 PC 2/106/33, 40. 262 2 Talcott Papers, 327. Compare the colonial view of Jonathan Law (1 Law Papers, 11 Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll., 241). 263 1 Correspondence of Colonial Governors Rhode Island, 219.