next court and then withdrawn. 84 The review in the Massachusetts bond 
action coming before the Superior Court on September 28, 1725, appellant 
waived his demurrer and pleaded the general issue. Issue being joined and 
witnesses examined, the jury brought in a general verdict for appellant, upon 
which judgment was given with costs. 85 
Having exhausted the ordinary remedies, Lechmere, in April, 1725, petitioned 
the General Assembly to set aside the judgments given and to grant 
a new trial wherein the partition actions might be well supported despite the 
exposition of the Superior Court upon the law. 80 Ordered by the assembly 
to answer, Winthrop replied that nothing in the petition merited interposition 
by the assembly. 87 But the assembly, in May, resolved that relief ought 
to be had in such probate cases by a new grant of administration, exhibition 
of an inventory of the whole estate, and a distribution made according to the 
rules of the law upon the whole. 88 Winthrop, again in June, exhibited in the 
Court of Probates an inventory of all personalty which had come into his 
hands, reiterated his former contentions as to the realty and the Court of Probates' 
jurisdiction thereof, and offered an oath that the inventory comprised 
the whole personal estate of intestate. The court, however, insisted upon an 
oath that the inventory comprised the whole of the real property as well as personal 
89 but Winthrop refused to comply therewith. Whereupon by a June 29, 
1725, sentence the court rejected the proffered inventory, and Winthrop ap- 
84 MS Conn. Superior Ct. Rec, 7724-27, sub 
Mar. 23, 1724/5, Sept. 28, 1725; 6 Winthrop 
Papers, 454. 
85 MS Conn. Superior Ct. Rec, 1724-27, sub 
Sept. 28, 1725; 6 Winthrop Papers, 454-55. 
86 The petition set forth the partition suits for 
one-third of the intestate's estate which was 
alleged to have descended to John and Anne 
as the only children and co-heirs of the intestate; 
that on demurrer the Supreme Court 
was of the opinion that the regulation and 
settlement of intestate estates was lodged with 
the Court of Probates and gave judgment 
against Lechmere, so that petitioners were 
never likely to recover their one-third without 
the aid and relief of the assembly. This was 
either because of the insufficiency of the direction 
of the colony laws already made or by 
the court's exposition thereof. It was alleged 
first that there was no remedy at common law 
as appeared by the partition suit judgment. 
Secondly, there was no remedy in the Court 
of Probates, since Winuirop had not presented 
any inventory of the realty and refused to do 
so. Nor could relief be obtained by forfeiture 
of the .£3,000 administration bond, that sum 
falling far short of one-third of the estate. 
Since the colony laws gave petitioners a right 
to one-third of the estate, they conceived it 
not consistent with the honor and dignity of 
the colony that some indisputable method of 
obtaining their rights had not been or would 
not be provided {ibid., 455-56; MS Conn. 
Archives, 1 Misc., #149). See also 7 Pub. Rec. 
Col. Conn., 573. 
87 Winthrop stated that no error was assigned, 
no new evidence alleged, nor any matter of 
equity demanded, nor anything alleged wherein 
the law of the colony could not relieve (6 Pub. 
Rec. Col. Conn., 525). 
88 Ibid., 525-26. It was also resolved that the 
petition should abate and that defendant recover 
costs of £1. Winthrop asserted that the 
speaker of the assembly was attorney for 
Lechmere in these causes (6 Winthrop Papers, 
457)- 
89 The court informed Winthrop that the 
1699 act directed all administrators of intestate 
estates to make an inventory of all the estate 
of the deceased, as well movable as immovable 
{ibid., 457-58)-