of the Board in the matter, and the matter ceased to be a source of popular 
clamor. 271 The papers were read in council and ordered to be entered on 
March 22, 1766. 272 However, the indefatigable Colden continued to point out 
to the imperial authorities the danger of finality of general verdicts in cases 
in which the crown was concerned. The right of appealing on the whole 
merits was so essential to secure the dependency of the colonies and the rights 
of the crown, as well as private property, against powerful combinations that 
it well deserved the interposition of Parliament if necessary. 273 Colden suffered 
further for his views when a pamphlet printed in London in his defense was 
secretly reprinted in New York and in October, 1767, charged to the Grand 
Jury in the Supreme Court. It was then presented as a "very vile, infamous, 
false and libellous reflextion" on the council, assembly, courts and law of 
the province. 274 Joint legislative investigation also took place. 270 
THE AFTERMATH 
Scarcely had the agitation aroused by Cunningham v. Forsey abated, when 
a case arose in New York which rather justified the dire forebodings of Colden. 
A dispute having taken place between one Captain John Campbell and John 
Van Rensselaer whether certain lands were vacant and available for crown 
grant to military officers, an additional instruction was issued in April, 1767, 
for the necessary directions to the proper law officer to commence such suits 
as might effectually decide the validity of the Van Rensselaer claims. In case 
judgment should be given in favor of these claims, contrary to the opinion 
of the prosecuting law officer, an appeal was to be prosecuted by that officer in 
the usual manner to the King in Council. 270 Immediately upon receipt of 
this additional instruction the Attorney General was directed to proceed in 
the cause with all possible dispatch; since formidable opposition was expected, 
two able counsel were desired to assist the law officer. 277 
271 7 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 814. 
272 29 MS Wins. N.Y. Council, 103-8; 7 
Colden Papers, 95-96. 
273 7 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 834; 2 Colden 
Letter Books, 116-17. 
274 2 Colden Letter Books, 132-33, 137-38, 
147-48. 
vsibid., 138-39, 143, 148-49, 154-55- 
27(3 2 Labaree, Royal Instructions, #879. The 
claims of the Campbell faction were supported 
by Colden (7 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 743; 
2 Colden Letter Books, n). No provision for 
an appeal was made in the Board of Trade 
representation on Campbell's petition (PC 
1/51); the appeal provision was inserted by 
the Privy Council (PC 2/112/191, 199, 216). 
It is open to question whether the instruction 
contemplated an immediate appeal from the 
court of original jurisdiction to the King in 
Council or an appeal with an intermediate 
hearing before the Governor and Council as 
in the usual case. The former interpretation 
would violate a conciliar procedural principle 
of entertaining appeals only from the superior 
colonial courts. See supra, p. 226. Yet the instruction 
governing appeals to the Governor 
and Council contained the confining "in all 
civil causes" clause (1 Labaree, Royal Instructions, 
#453), and the intrusion action was 
criminal in nature. Note that the provision for 
appeals in cases of misdemeanors, another 
branch of criminal jurisdiction, made no mention 
of an intermediate hearing (ibid., #458). 
277 7 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 950.