[Peter Cutul (2025)] and quietly under them for the space of about seventeen years; and that in all his life he never saw Mr. Adolph Philipse, to his knowledge.” An old, well-respected, attorney and local resident, James Brown testified that years earlier Adolph Philipse himself had stated that “the land was never owned by him.” A local judge, Judge Terbos, who even had learned to speak the language of the Wappinger, affirmed that Adolph Philipse had wanted to meet with the tribe to discuss land purchase but never did: “...Mr. Philipse told the said Sachem that he and his Tribe must all come together and then he would agree with them for said Land and pay them for the Same: but the said Judge Terbos further adds, that he never knew, nor heard of any meeting for that Purpose, nor that they nor any of them, ever made or Executed any Deed of said Land to said Mr Adolph Philipse nor to any other Person; but ever knew and understood that said Tribe of Indians always Claimed and do Still Claim the sole Right to said Lands.” 41 Tenant farmer Peter Anjuvine went on to vouch for the good character of the tribe, declaring them “remarkably Honest, Loyal, and Faithful.” 42 Building on that, Spalding had this to say, “By some of these and some other Evidences, methinks it, also clearly appeared to have been the invariable Custom of these Indians, never to make an absolute Sale of the same piece of Land twice; but always (by Tradition) were Careful to keep up the Knowledge, and acknowledgement of such Lands as they, or their ancestors had sold, and very Curious in their nice Distinctions between alienated, and Unalienated Lands.” 43 Continuing on in his reflection of the trial, Spalding definitively stated, “Several others testified that they had heard the said Adolph Philipse say (and some of them; but a little before his Death had heard him say) that although he had a Patent of said Land; yet he never had purchased the Same of the Natives, nor never could prevail upon them to sell the same.” 44 The situation prevailed even with Adolph’s heir, nephew Fredrick Philipse, “who survived his said Uncle but a few years, was often heard to lament his said Uncle’s Negligence, in that he had omitted to purchase the said Lands of the said Tribe of Indians;” 45 In addition to the parade of credible witnesses, in his closing arguments Spalding gave a rousing vindication of the Wappingers’ claim to the land, punching holes through the landlord’s sketchy and scant defense that hinged upon the questionable 1702 deed to the property: “Was this Instrument ever acknowledged before lawful authority? No. Was it ever Inrolled or Recorded? No... And are not all these Requisite in order to render a Deed of Sale Valid and Effectual in Law? Yes, verily methinks they are.” 46 Despite proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the land had been improperly claimed by Philipse, Morris, and Robinson, and pointing out all of the legal statutes that their claim failed to meet, perhaps it was no surprise in whose favor the Council ruled. The landlord’s attorney summed up best why despite 41 Ibid, 218. Henry Noble MacCracken, Old Dutchess Forever! The Story of An American County (New York: Hastings House), 43 Oscar Handlin and Irving Mark, “Chief Daniel Nimham v. Roger Morris, Beverly Robinson, and Philip Philipse - An Indian Land Case in Colonial New York, 1765-1767”, Ethnohistory, Vol. 11, No. 3 (Summer 1964), Published by Duke University Press: 217. 44 Ibid, 220. 45 Ibid, 221. 46 Ibid, 232. 42 the convincing case made by Spalding the Council ruled as it did, “observing upon the Dangerous Consequences of admitting such Kind of Complaints... This (said he) will be of Dangerous Tendencey; Twill open a Door to the greatest Mischiefs, inasmuch as a great part of the Lands in this Province are supposed to lie under much the Same Situation; and upon the whole intimated, that it would therefore, by no means do, to give Heed to the present Complaint.” A ruling in favor of the Wappinger would open a can of worms, one that might unravel a whole network of questionable land claims throughout the region based largely on short dealings with the Native Americans and underhanded tactics. The trial ended in a strangely ironic twist with the head of the Council asking Mr. Spalding if the Council had not given the Wappinger a fair trial. Receiving no official ruling, Spalding, Nimham and the Wappinger returned home. Not long after, Nimham saw the Council’s verdict published in the local press and in at least one New York City newspaper on March 11, 1767: “Upon the whole Matter, his Excellency the Governor and the Council, are