the claimants in possession petitioned the King in Council in 1744, alleging 
judicial and jury partisanship. It was therefore prayed that the dispute be 
heard as res Integra and determined by the King in Council, or by commissioners 
and jury from neighboring colonies, or by royal commissioners alone. 69 
When this petition disappeared into the administrative maw of Whitehall, 70 
the parties agreed, in 1746, to have the whole controversy decided by one 
selected ejectment action in the New Jersey Supreme Court. In this case a 
special verdict was to be agreed upon and consensually found, so that the 
merits of the controversy could be finally determined at the Council Board on 
appeal from the Governor and Council. 71 Earlier it had been urged by proprietary 
counsel that a chancery suit was more adapted to reveal the "equity" 
of the freeholders' cause, since an appeal with all the evidence in writing lay 
in such case. 72 The proprietors had already, in April, 1745, sued in equity in 
the cause, 73 but this urging may also have been calculated to avoid a general 
verdict in an action at law, 74 or to bar an appeal. 75 However, the representative 
suit failed to materialize, for reasons that are disputed. 70 
Commencing with 1745, judicial enforcement of the proprietary claims was 
nullified by riots, while the anti-proprietary disposition of the assembly 
hindered preventive and punitive legislative action. 77 In 1748, with local settlement 
obviously impossible of attainment, royal intervention was petitioned for 
69 Ibid., 206-15. Compare ibid., 332-33, as 
to the allegation of judicial bias, and ibid., 
345-46, on the freedom of appeal. 
70 3 APC, Col., #596. The Board of Trade 
postponed consideration until application by 
petitioners (fCTP, 1741/2-49, 129). 
71 6 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.f., 349-50, 356- 
59. Cf. ibid., 293-94, 3i6, wherein it appears 
that the proprietors at first rejected the proposition. 
Some question arose whether a special 
verdict or a bill of exceptions should be employed. 
David Ogden, counsel for the proprietors, 
stated that it was "advised that the 
removing a cause before his Majesty in Council 
on a bill of exceptions to the evidence may 
so happen as not to bring the merits of the 
cause before His Majesty in Council." ("Draft 
of Proposalls to the Rioters" [n.d.], Morris 
MSS [Rutgers Univ. Lib.]). Ogden was also 
advised that there was doubt whether the 
plaintiff in an action of trespass and ejectment 
could demur to defendant's title given in evidence 
on trial so as to take the like advantage 
of a defect therein as if a special verdict were 
given in the cause. 
72 Statement of Council of Proprietors of 
Eastern Division of New Jersey, March 25, 
1746, 8-9 (CO 5/974/F 82). 
73 For the reasons advanced for exercise of 
equitable jurisdiction, see Bill Chanc, N.J., 
69-74. 
74 See the appraisal of the offer to come to 
trial by the Board of Trade (7 Doc. Rel. Col. 
Hist. N.J., 507-8). 
75 See supra, pp. 237-39. 
70 The ostensible reason for the withdrawal of 
the freeholders was proprietary monopoly of 
counsel (6 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.]., 365-67, 
392-97)- But compare the assembly version 
of the matter (7 ibid., 352-53, 463) and the 
proprietary version (Paris Papers, X 21; ibid., 
V 29, 36). The Board of Trade later accepted 
the proprietary version (7 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. 
N.J., 527). For further presentation of the 
freeholders' view see An Answer to the Council 
of Proprietors' Two Publications; sett forth at 
Perth-Amboy the 25th of March, 1746, and 
the 2.5 th of March 1747 (1747), 12 (NYPL). 
77 6 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.J., 397-418, 420- 
2i, 426-27, 440-41, 463-64; 7 ibid., 111-12, 
161-62, 197-98, 207-26, 276-88. Belcher,' 
upon his arrival, futilely dwelt upon the attributes 
of conciliar appellate jurisdiction for 
settlement of the disputes (ibid., 69). Cf. ibid 
84. '