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: 199. 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: 204.

means of bribery. 22 Although some of the Indian names on the document were indeed authentic, according to an observer present at the hearing, Nimham stated that "he never knew, nor heard of their making any Conveyance of said lands, nor of their having any authority to dispose the same." 23

Despite the questionable nature of Robinson's 1702 "Indian Deed," an investigation by New York Attorney General John Kempe, favorable to the landlords, was enough to persuade the Council to rule against Nimham and the Wappinger. 24 Befuddled by Indian descriptions of land that confused him, Kempe concluded that the land claimed by Nimham seemed not to agree with the description of the area in question. His interpretation led the New York Common Council in 1765 to reject the Wappinger's petition. Adding insult to injury, two days later, New York colonial authorities arrested the Wappinger's attorney, Samuel Munroe on seemingly bogus charges of "Champerty and Maintenance."* 25

The Hudson Valley Land Riots of 1766 Taking advantage of the favorable Council ruling, Robinson and Sheriff James Livingston wasted no time in evicting tenants unwilling to sign one to three year leases and pay rents in cash (traditionally rents were paid in agricultural products). 26 Resistant tenants were harshly dealt with, some even being burned out of their homes. A Connecticut lawyer, who anonymously wrote a firsthand account of the situation made this observation:**