Attorney General Kempe accordingly brought an information for an intrusion 
against Van Rensselaer in the Supreme Court. The trial commencing 
on October 25, 1768, extended through November 5, a great quantity of evidence 
being submitted. Justice David Jones sat alone for most of the trial, 
Justices Smith and Livingston being interested. 278 During the trial Kempe 
objected to several rulings excluding crown evidence and admitting evidence 
for the defendant. 279 At the close of his case Kempe asked the court to direct 
a special verdict, since it would be more satisfactory to know the opinion of 
all the justices and since the construction of the royal grant was a matter of 
law not proper for the determination of an illiterate jury. If the court conceived 
a special verdict unnecessary, then Kempe prayed a charge favorable 
to the crown. But Jones failed to direct a special verdict and charged the jury 
unfavorably for the crown. 280 Following a general verdict for the defendant 
and judgment thereon, 2SI Kempe sent Jones three bills of exceptions to 
sign. 2B2 It had been questioned during the trial whether the crown was entitled 
to a bill of exceptions, on the ground that the Statute of Westminster 11, 
c. 31, did not mention the King and did not extend to a criminal prosecution 
283 Nevertheless, Jones signed two relating to admissibility of evidence, 
but refused to sign the third which recited all the evidence, the crown requests 
for jury charges, the charge given, and the failure to direct a special verdict. 284 
Misrepresentation of his directions was given by Jones as reason for this refusal 
to sign. 2Bs From a later report in the cause it appears that the bills of exceptions 
were for use on writ of error to the Governor and Council, not for direct 
appeal to the King in Council. 286 
Following this unsatisfactory outcome Lieutenant-Colonel Robert Stewart, a 
colleague of Campbell, recapitulated the proceedings in a petition to the Board 
of Trade. Petitioner pointed out that a special verdict as requested would have 
brought the disputed points before the full court for their determination. Then, 
if judgment had been given contrary to the opinion of the Attorney General, 
278 See MS Mins. N.Y. Sup. Ct. ]ud. (Engrossed), 
1766-69, 557-62, 568-74. Horsmanden, 
C. J., sat for part of one day, Nov. 3. 
The case is discussed at large in Goebel and 
Naughton, Law Enforcement in Colonial New 
York., 249 et seq. 
279 MS Notes of Evidence with some notes of 
the arguments of counsel, on the trial of an 
information filed by the King against ]ohn 
Van Rensselaer, 2-3, 19-20, in John Tabor 
Kempe MSS, Lawsuits. 
280 Ibid., no pagination. See also a Feb. 10, 
1773, report of Attorney General Kempe to 
the Governor and Council in the cause (Misc. 
MSS Claverack. [NYHS]). 
281 MS Mins. N.Y. Sup. Ct. fud. (Engrossed), 
1766-69, 574. 
282 See John Tabor Kempe MSS, Lawsuits sub 
nomine Van Rensselaer. 
283 Ibid. 
284 For the three bills of exceptions see ibid. 
285 Jones to Kempe, Jan. 21, 1769 (ibid.). 
Kempe in reply imputed the alleged misrepresentation 
to the faults of Jones' memory 
(Kempe to Jones, Jan. 27, 1769 [ibid.]). 
286 Rep. Attorney General Kempe to Governor 
and Council, Feb. 10, 1773 (Misc. MSS Claverac\ 
[NYHS]).