tration bond, but both letters and bond extended only to the personalty previously 
administered by Winthrop. 95 
Lechmere, under color of these letters of administration, inventoried and 
appraised all intestate's realty and exhibited an inventory thereof before a 
Special Superior County Court of April 29, 1726. This court approved and 
ordered the inventory to be received as well as an account totaling X 356. 96 
On May 12 Lechmere petitioned the General Assembly that no personalty 
had come to his hands to pay the said due from the estate for debts and 
administration charges and prayed that the assembly enable him to pay such 
amount by sale of lands. Despite a May 20 remonstrance by Winthrop and 
a demand for an appeal to the King in Council, the assembly granted Lechmere 
power to sell such lands and ordered a bill brought in for that purpose. 97 
Winthrop thereupon again protested to the Governor and Company against 
any illegal proceedings, especially granting power to a pretended administrator 
to sell part of the realty to meet debts of the intestate, as they would answer for 
the same before the King in Council, 98 but this protest was regarded as a contempt 
by the Governor and Company, which on May 25 ordered Winthrop 
brought before the bar of the assembly to answer. 99 An act was then passed 
empowering Lechmere to sell as much of the realty as might be sufficient to 
discharge the debts and necessary costs. 100 Brought before the bar of the 
assembly, Winthrop represented the hardships of his case and that he would 
lay the whole proceedings before the King in Council. This was treated as a 
contempt, and Winthrop was committed to the custody of the sheriff. Given 
his freedom or making his escape after three days, Winthrop was fined £20 
for his contempt. 101 
Having been denied an appeal in the colony, Winthrop resorted to England 
and presented a petition to the King in Council on January 16, 1726/7, for 
leave to appeal from the two Superior Court sentences of March 22, 1725/6, 
85 Ibid., 461-62. The bond taken from Lechmere 
and sureties was in £30,000 penalty. 
The Superior Court judges who took it were 
allegedly all members of the assembly. See 
also tire inference drawn in Adams, The 
Emancipation of Massachusetts (1893), 299. 
96 MS Conn. Superior Ct. Rec, 1724-27, sub 
April 29, 1726. It was alleged by Winthrop 
that the Superior Court could not by law be 
held specially, being confined by act of assembly 
to stated times of sitting. Further, that 
the court had no power to receive such inventory 
(6 Winthrop Papers, 462). 
97 MS Conn. Archives, 1 Misc., #155-66. The 
appeal requested was from the two sentences 
of the Superior Court which were alleged to 
break in upon Winthrop's inheritance and, 
contrary to the laws of England, defeat the heir 
at law of his just right (6 Winthrop Papers, 
463). The remonstrance was dismissed as not 
complying with the common course of justice 
in the colony—that is, making application to 
the assembly when judgments of the Superior 
Courts were grievous {ibid., 464). See also 
7 Pub. Rec. Col. Conn., 20. 
98 MS Conn. Archives, 1 Misc., #157. 
33 Ibid., #158. 
100 7 Pub. Rec. Col. Conn., 37. Cf. 6 Winthrop 
Papers, 464-65. 
101 Ibid., 465-66; MS Conn. Archives, 1 Misc., 
#161. See 6 Winthrop Papers, 471, for an 
affidavit as to the seemly behavior of Winthrop 
before the assembly. Compare the General Assembly 
version that Winthrop behaved himself 
"insolently, contemptuously, and disorderly" 
(7 Pub. Rec. Col. Conn., 43-44).