the merits in June, 1770. 130 The illness of Attorney General De Grey, combined 
with conciliar desire to quit London, then prevented further proceedings 
until November; 131 final hearing of argument did not take place until 
June, 1771. 132 In their argument the appellant Mohegans insisted that the 
respondent colony could only gain title to the Mohegan lands by conquest 
or purchase; conquest could not be pretended in this case, and title by purchase 
had to be shown free from fraudulent seduction, undue encroachments, 
and arbitrary acts of force. The 1640 grant from Uncas, not having been insisted 
upon or even recorded until 1736, was either a spurious or a deserted 
title. 133 Even admitting that the 1640 grant might have weight, it was designed 
during which they had declined determining 
American titles, excused the delay which had 
happened on the part of the appellants. Nothing 
fell from any of them from whence we 
could collect their opinions upon the merits; 
but it is apparent from the event of this motion 
that we can expect no degree of favor." 
Richard Jackson also wrote that "the Master 
of the Rolls who was the principal Privy Councillor 
bred to the law thought we ought to 
bring the cause on at length and saved to 
us the benefit of any arguments to be founded 
on the delay" (3 Trumbull MSS, 5 b, 17 c). 
Jackson had earlier advised the colony that, 
as the Council Board might not understand 
colonial conditions, it would be advisable to 
rely upon "limitation of legal remedy" (Pitkin 
Papers, 33-34). Cf. Ingersoll Papers, 413-14, 
416, 422-23. See also the reasons of Pitkin 
"against the cause being ever heard" (Pit/{in 
Papers, 60). 
130 PC 2/114/414, 415; Wm. Samuel Johnson 
MS Diaries (Conn. Hist. Soc), sub June 12 
and 13, 1770. Copies of the printed "cases" of 
the appellants, of the respondent Governor 
and Company, and of the respondent landholders 
are in Columbia Univ. Law Lib. A 
copy of the last case is also in the Conn. 
Hist. Soc. Lib. Cf. the manuscript notes on 
the case in Wm. Samuel Johnson MSS, Mohegan 
Indians, #29, 30. See Trumbull Papers, 
429-30, for reasons for delay in hearing. 
131 PC 2/114/551; Trumbull Papers, 439-41, 
445! 3 Trumbull MSS, 20 b, 30 b. Attorney 
General De Grey and J. Dunning were counsel 
for the respondent landholders, Alexander 
Wedderburn and Richard Jackson for the 
Governor and Company, and Charles Yorke 
and Fowler Walker for the appellants. Agent 
Johnson wrote that the arguments of appellants 
were "long and labored, replete with 
the most illiberal and ill-founded abuse and 
misrepresentation, both of the Colony and the 
landholders, whom they represented as a set 
of the greatest tyrants, hypocrites, cheats, and 
deceivers that the world ever saw" (Trumbull 
Papers, 439). Cf. ibid., 441, 452, and Wm. 
Samuel Johnson MS Diaries (Conn. Hist. Soc), 
sub Nov. 7, 1770. 
132 PC 2/115/241, 264; Wm. Samuel Johnson 
MS Diaries (Conn. Hist. Soc.) sub June 3 
and 11, 1771; Trumbull Papers, 482. See 
ibid., 475-76, for one reason for delay, absence 
of the Speaker at Committee. The death 
of the mother of Solicitor General Wedderburn 
was another cause of delay (3 Trumbull 
MSS, 55 a). 
133 Case of Appellants, 23. William Samuel 
Johnson, counsel for the colony, stated the 
colony answer as follows: "As the Deed of 
Sept. 1640 was first produced in Evidence at 
this Court [the 1738 commission], they here 
state their Objections to that Deed. Notwithstanding 
the Ingenious Arguments of Mr. 
Horsmanden as Mr. F. calls them, they do 
not seem now to deny its have been Executed 
by Uncas (and it is proved as well as a thing 
of this kind, at this distance of time, can be 
proved) and if Executed by him it must have 
its legal Operation, and is in express Terms 
a Grant of all the hands that did, or of right 
ought to belong to him except the Land then 
Planted confessedly inclosed tile Land in Question, 
but they still Object—lst. That it was 
not recorded till 1736. Answer. This is not 
essential to the Validity of a Deed. 2ly. There 
was no Law for Recording Deeds at least till 
21 years after, nor was it generally practised 
in the Colony, even long after the making of 
that Law. 3ly. Neither were their Deeds of 
1659 and 1665 Recorded till 1705 when they 
wanted to make use of them att Dudley's