local courts failed to conclude the dispute, since the judgments rendered were 
conflicting. 67 But when in the early 1740's judgments uniformly favored the 
proprietary interests, no appeals to the King in Council were taken. 68 Instead, 
contributed to fee defendant counsel, William 
Nicoll (2 Doc. Rel Col. Hist. N.J., 107-8). 
In a 1700 proprietary answer to a remonstrance 
of the province inhabitants it was declared 
that in the action against Jones "the jury 
being all planters gave a generall verdict 
against the proprietors contrary to the direction 
of the court and the consent of the 
councill on both sides, who had agreed upon 
a speciall verdict" (ibid., 348). A 1749 letter 
from Richard Partridge, colonial agent, mentioned 
finding "diverse old writings at the 
Council office" relating to this cause. Partridge 
stated that the cause "was, after a fair tryall, 
given by the jury in favour of Jones the defendant, 
by bringing in a general verdict; 
but the court, as they had directed the jury 
to bring in their verdict special, leaving the 
point of law to the judges, would not accept 
of the verdict; and upon a pretty deal of deliberation 
(notwithstanding the verdict of the 
jury) gave judgement for Fullerton, the plaintiff 
with costs of suit" (7 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. 
N.J., 268-69). See also Hatfield, History of 
Elizabeth, New Jersey, 241-42. Cf. the allegation 
in the Bill in the Chancery of New Jersey, 
at the Suit of John Earl of Stair, and Others, 
Proprietors of the Eastern Division of New 
Jersey, against Benjamin Bond, and some 
Other Persons of Elizabeth-Town (1747), 120, 
as to the cause of reversing the judgment 
against Jones, "that the special verdict agreed 
upon, and on which probably the judgment 
was given, was not found by any jury; on the 
contrary, the jury to whom it was referred, 
gave a general verdict for Jones." For a discussion 
of the conflicting versions of the trial 
see Edsall, op. cit., 99-100. At any rate, an 
appeal to the King in Council was moved for 
and allowed under the usual statutory conditions 
(Edsall, op. cit., 274). Cf. the relation of 
Richard Partridge that upon judgment "the 
defendant appealed to the King in Council; 
which was not granted by the court; but on 
his petition here [London], it was allowed 
him" (7 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.J., 269). 
There is no evidence of such application in 
the Privy Council register. 
The petition and appeal presented to the 
King in Council in September, 1696, was referred 
to the Board of Trade (PC 2/76/520). 
This body took no action thereon apart from 
referring the petition to the proprietors to 
answer. See CSP, Col, 1696-97, #185, 342, 
349. On February 4, 1696/7, the petition and 
appeal was read at a Committee meeting and 
February 23 appointed for hearing the appeal. 
The Committee (present were the Earl of 
Bridgewater, the Earl of Stamford, and Sir 
William Trumbull) also ordered that all persons 
concerned should attend and desired that 
Chief Justice Holt be present for the hearing 
(PC 2/76/578). It was apparently felt that 
legal knowledge was desirable upon hearing 
the appeal. The conciliar chronology of Edsall 
erroneously states that the appeal was heard 
on February 10 (op. cit., 101). After hearing 
counsel for both appellant and the proprietors 
of East New Jersey the Committee agreed to 
recommend reversal of the May 16, 1695, 
judgment of the Court of Common Right 
(PC 2/76/585). The Committee (wrongly 
termed a "sub-committee of the Council" by 
Edsall, op. cit., 100) was composed of Chief 
Justice Holt, Sir Henry Goodricke, and Sir 
Joseph Williamson. This Committee report 
was thereupon embodied in an Order in Council 
(PC 2/76/586); the grounds of the reversal, 
not being set forth, were later the subject 
of dispute. See Tanner, The Province of 
New Jersey, 1664-1738, 77. William Nicoll 
made an affidavit in 1707 that the legality of 
the Elizabethtown patent was the sole dispute 
at the Council hearing (An Answer to a Bill 
in the Chancery of New Jersey, at the Suit of 
John, Earl of Stair, and Others, Commonly 
Called Proprietors of the Eastern Division of 
New Jersey, against Benjamin Bond and 
Others, Claiming under the Original Proprietors 
and Associates, of Elizabeth-Town [1752], 
31). The proprietors asserted that the reversal 
had not been upon the merits but for some 
procedural error (Bill Chanc. N.J., 44). This 
conciliar judgment did much to encourage the 
opposition to proprietary land claims which 
featured the colonial history of New Jersey and 
more immediately led to the reuniting of the 
New Jersey provinces in the crown in 1702. 
See Edsall, op. cit., 101; Fisher, op. cit., 
180-81; Tanner, op. cit., 77. 
67 Bill Chanc. N.J., 46-49 
es lbid., 50-51, 69; 6 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.J., 
355-