evidence, so that it was not material whether the verdicts were general or 
special. 63 Finally, we may refer to an anonymous statement 64 written in 1765 
regarding the method of taking appeals to the King in Council in the several 
colonies, which remarks that "the evidence both parol and written given on 
both sides" in both the original and appellate courts was made "part of the 
record, along with the process, pleadings, judgment, etc!' 65 No distinction 
was made between the New England and the legally more orthodox colonies. 
WILLIAM MURRAY AND COUNCIL PRACTICE 
It is desirable at this juncture to speak somewhat more at length respecting the 
development of William Murray's (Lord Mansfield) views toward the close 
of our period, for he became the person most responsible for the trend toward 
professionalization of the Council's judicial function. The occasion on which 
Murray had sought solicitor Paris' advice was in connection with the acute 
disturbance over certain New Jersey lands. The prolonged course of this controversy 
needs no retailing here. It suffices to say that the cause arose in endeavors 
of the East New Jersey proprietors to enforce claims to land in the 
so-called "Elizabeth purchase," settled under pretense of grants from the 
Indians and from Colonel Nicolls. 66 Ejectment and trespass actions in the 
63 Add. MS., 15,488/127-28. 
64 No clue as to the author has been found. 
05 Add. MS, 35,914/189-90. 
63 See Fisher, New Jersey As a Royal Province 
(1911), 176-209, for a detailed recital of the 
controversy. Cf. Bond, The Quit-Rent System 
in the American Colonies, c. iv. For opinion of 
counsel on the validity of the Nicolls patent 
and the Indian deeds see Paris Papers, X 97. 
This dispute had been before the Council 
earlier, in the appeal of Jones v. Fullerton 
from the Court of Common Right in East 
New Jersey. -In this cause the rights of the 
recognized proprietors were challenged by 
settlers holding land under a 1664 patent from 
Colonel Nicolls, who, acting for the Duke 
of York, the royal patentee, had overthrown 
Dutch rule in New Netherland. The merits 
of the claims are set out at length by Edsall, 
Journal of the Court of Common Right, 96— 
101, 109-112. To enforce their rights, the 
East New Jersey proprietors, in October, 1693, 
brought an action of ejectment in the name 
of James Fullerton against one Jeffry Jones, 
a Nicolls patentee {ibid., 246—47). The official 
version of the 1694-95 trial held at Perth 
Amboy records that judgment was given for 
the plaintiff upon argument of a demurrer 
{ibid., 256-57, 263, 274). Later unofficial 
versions of the trial alleged that a jury verdict 
was returned for defendant Jones, but that the 
judges, partial to the proprietary interests, 
gave judgment for plaintiff Fullerton. In a 
petition of the inhabitants of Elizabethtown 
to the King it was related that the action 
"came on to be tried, and altho upon a full 
evidence, the jury (who were chosen by the 
said proprietors, or their creatures) were notwithstanding 
so just as to give a verdict for 
the said Jones; yet the said pretended Judges 
being either of the number of the said proprietors 
or by them appointed, were so partial 
and arbitrary, as contrary to law and justice, 
to give a judgment against the said Jones, and 
for the said pretended Proprietors; which unjust 
judgment, your Majesty upon appeal hath 
in your princely justice been pleased to reverse, 
altho the said pretended judges, in hopes to 
support their said judgment, did transmit a 
writing for a copy of the proceedings in the 
said cause, which was false, and not according 
to the truth of the proceedings had in the 
cause" (2 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.J., 127-28; 
Learning and Spicer, Grants, Concessions . . . 
of New Jersey, 690). In the 1695 instructions 
of the proprietors to Thomas Gordon, an agent 
bound for England, mention is made of a 
verdict of a jury who were all parties and