dent that the instructional ambiguity was resolved in favor of proceedings according to the common law, perhaps on the basis of Jamaica precedent. A departure from common law practice is found in the statement that the appellate court could "reform" judgments below without imposing any limitation to judgments upon special verdicts. But no general review of the facts by the appellate body was contemplated. CUNNINGHAM V. FORSEY Let us now turn to the problem of interpretation as it emerged in New York in an episode which shook the province and had repercussions the whole length of the Atlantic seaboard. Forsey v. Cunningham was an action in the Supreme Court for an assault, battery, and wounding committed by defendant upon plaintiff's person on July 28, 1763. 179 The manner of the assault particularly aroused popular resentment; Cunningham concealed a sword upon his person, then sought out and pursued plaintiff, beating him until he defended himself. Whereupon the assailant stabbed Forsey through the lungs. 180 Upon return of the writ in the 1763 October term, plaintiff declared in the usual form to the extent of ,£5,000 damages; after an imparlance to the following January term, the defendant pleaded the general issue. In the April term, 1764, defendant moved for and was granted a struck jury, and the cause came on for trial at the next October term. 181 At the trial, proof of the battery was so clear that apparently defendant adduced only evidence in mitigation of damages. 182 After an unobjectionable trial of ten or twelve hours duration, the jury, on October 26, found the defendant guilty of the trespass charged in the declaration and assessed damages at ,£1,500, and costs at six pence. 183 179 The history of this celebrated cause is set 182 The evidence for the plaintiff consisted of forth in The Report of an Action of Assault, Linus King; Cornelius Hyatt; Thomas William Battery, and Wounding, Tried in the Supreme Moore; James Murray; an account by James Court of judicature for the Province of New Murray, Dr. Monroe's receipt for Yor\, in the Term of October 1764, between Dr. John Jones; Dr. Thomas Jones; Dr. John Thomas Forsey, Plaintiff, and Waddel Cun- Jones' receipt for £20; Dr. Thomas Jones' ningham, Defendant (New York, 1764) account, /20; an Aug. 25, 1764, affidavit of (hereinafter referred to as Rep. Forsey v. Alex Scott; an April 30, 1764, affidavit of Cunningham). This pamphlet was reprinted Stephen Clay; Sheffield Howard; Robert in the New-York. Gazette; or, the Weekly Mercer; George Traile; James De Peyster. For Post-Boy commencing with the Jan. 3, 1765, the defendant: John Holt; Holt's newspaper issue (#1148) and terminating with the No. 1077 dated Aug. 25, 1763; Benjamin Feb. 21 issue (#1155). The brief account of Jones; William Gillihand; Robert Alexander; the cause in Keys, Cadwallader Colden, A Richard Mercer; James Thompson; James Representative Eighteenth Century Official Mills (MS Mins. N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jud. [Rough], (1906), 300-311, is unduly pro-Colden and 1764-67, sub Oct. 25, 1764). unappreciative of the legal issues involved. 183 Ibid., sub Oct. 26, 1764. Three eminent 180 2 Aspinwall Papers, 10 Mass. Hist. Soc. counsel appeared for the plaintiff and four Coll. (4th ser.), 554-55. for the defendant; witnesses on both sides 181 MS Mins. N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jud. (Rough), were fully examined, and the evidence summed 1764-67, sub Oct. 25, 1764. up by counsel for both sides (Rep. Forsey v.