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

Ibid, 218. Henry Noble MacCracken, Old Dutchess Forever! The Story of An American County (New York: Hastings House), 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. Ibid, 220. Ibid, 221. Ibid, 232.

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."