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