CONTROVERSY RESPECTING THE NEW HAMPSHIRE GRANTS.

395

the Sunday next before the sitting of the Inferiour Court of Common Pleas and the Court of Gen-eral Sessions of the Peace for the said County , Bildad Andrews Esquire came to this Deponents Houseand shewed him the Copy of a Letter which he Informed this Deponent was wrote by Israel CurtisEsquire one of his Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the said County residing at Windsor to oneWebb residing in Westminister which gave reason to this Deponent to suspect that lie the said Curtistogether with the said Nathan Stone and a Number of others from Windsor Intended to assemble ina Tumultious manner at Court , this Deponent therefore as soon as Possible set out for Chesterand on his way thither called upon Joseph Lord Esquire one of the Judges of the said InferiourCourt who accompanied this Deponent, that they both arrived at Chester the Evening before thesitting of the Court and communicated the Copy of the said Letter to Thomas Chandler Esquirefirst Judge of the said Inferiour Court and to some Justices of the Peace, but as the Copy aforesaidwas not fully expressive of the Intention of the Tumult it was difficult for them to determine whatmeasures to take—That on Tuesday the fifth day of June last the Day appointed for the meeting ofthe said Court , the said Nathan Stone together with Joseph Wait, Benjamin Wait, Israel Curtis,Enoch Judd, Joseph King, Steel Smith and a number of others amounting to about thirty as thisDeponent believes appeared at the place where the Court were to sit in a Riotous and Tumultiousmanner the said Nathan Stone being armed with a sword, the said Joseph Wait witli a Dagger orHanger and the rest with large stave or clubbs and as it was feared by the Judges they designedmischief the said Thomas Chandler mildly demanded of the said Nathan Stone the reason of his beingthus armed and desired him not to carry his Sword into Court (or to that purpose) the said NathanStone replied in a Low voice so that the Deponent is not able to say what was his Answer. TheJudges soon after took their Seats and the Court being regularly opened according to the usual manner,the several Persons aforesaid and their Associates came into the Court House with their Hatts onand the said Nathan Stone and Joseph Wait armed as aforesaid (the said Stone carrying his Sword in his Pland) approached the Table before the Judges seat, while their Party, armed as aforesaid,stood at a small distance in a Body facing the Court . Then Stone demanded of the Court whatbusiness they had to sit there as a Court and said that he made this Demand in behalf of thePublick, in this he was seconded by the said Joseph Wait and the said Israel Curtis, and wereanswered by some of the Judges that the Letters Patent or Ordinance erecting the County and theCommission of the Pleas which were always read at the opening of the Court shewed their authorityand all who wanted satisfaction ought to have attended to the reading of them, whereupon the saidNathan Stone Joseph Wait and Israel Curtis by many Arguments Denied the authority this Govern-ment had to errect the said County which the Court thought prudent to bear with, and not to makemuch answer to, but gave them to understand they should proceed to do the business then beforethem, Whereupon the said Joseph Wait, who stood Indicted with some others for a Riot, demandedan Immediate Tryal, —That the Insolent behaviour of the said Joseph Wait, Nathan Stone andIsrael Curtis; and the martial appearance of them and their Party armed and Ranged as aforesaidbeing considered, the Court apprehended it not prudent that the said Rioters should be then put onTryal, as the Court and Jury could not be without fear if they were convicted, nor safe to refusethem a Tryal at that time, and oblige them to enter into Recognizance to appear at the NextTerm, least they should resent it by some immediate act of violence. Therefore the Court informedthem they might depart without entering into any further Recognizance—after which it was movedby the said Nathan Stone, Joseph Wait and Israel Curtis that John Grout an Attorney of the saidCourt should be disabled from practising representing him as a bad man, Upon which they wereanswered by the Court that if M r Grout was a bad Man it was unknown to the Court that theCourt entertained a Contrary opinion of him. However if they bad any thing to accuse Mm