(353) 
alleged lack of authority to make them, and judgments of 
ejectment were accordingly entered.* 
The rulings of the Court in these cases were probably tech- 
nically correct upon the evidence presented. The proper evi- 
" * See Small zs. Carpenter, etc., Benton’s ‘“‘ Vermont’s Early Settlers,’ Py 60; 
Narrative of Proceedings, etc., N.Y. Assembly Journal Supplement, 1773 
letermination of the western bounds of Connecticut applied equally to Mas- 
sachusetts, the conditions in each case being the same. Her charter rights 
were the same; she was a party to the treaty of 1650; the Dutch possessions 
approached Massachusetts o further eastward than ap- 
proached Connecticut, Massachusetts had already settled several towns 
west of the Connecticut Rive Commissioner re apparently ex- 
: w 
pecting to make the same agreement with somaannaa ty but the latter col- 
admit its authority to bindthem. (Bancroft’s Ee v S 2: 78-84; Hutch- 
inson’s Hist., 1: 229-257. See Pope’s West. Mass., Berkshire Book, 1: 
49-95. 1982. 
The Commission, however, in its report in 1665-6, expressly state that 
they “find he limits of Massachusetts” to be the same 20-mile parallel 
a 
t 
olls and the Commission, in the — with aie ee itself, by 
lature of Nov. 
“An Act to ae this Province and Dependencies into shires and counties,’ 
= 
an 
oO 
a 
B 
io") 
ae) 
8 
at 
JA 
= 
nN 
ve) 
rea 
_~ 
H 
QO 
° 
= 
° 
of 
me 
7) 
rp 
SS 
4 
‘oD 
wi 
8 
a 
b 
oO 
a 
~~ 
° 
a 
= 
c 
et 
a 
o 
jor 
Commission was immaterial ; because (a) no such agreement was required ; 
(6) the prior rights of Massachusetts rested up er charter of 1628, and 
upon the narrow limits of the “actual possessions ”’ or ‘‘inhabitancy ’’ of the 
and reported the 20-mile line to be her “‘just limits’ in # report probably 
filed in the Plantation Office (Colonial Doc., 3: I10, 112; see ‘‘Represen- 
