History of Northampton, Massachusetts, from its settlement in 1654;

96 HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTON. [1754.
ment was had till Monda)^, the 11"\ Throughout another
day the forensic battle raged before a vote was reached.
Tlien
"the question was put Whether the Town woiald assert their right
to all the lands within the bounds of the Town of Northampton which
are not included in those divisions which the Comons were distributed
into & which were divided before the year 1700 as well as those lands
called Inward Comons as any other, and it passed in the affirmative.
Then the Question was put Whether the Town would assert their right
to those parts of the antient highways within the bounds of s'' Town
which parts have been of late j^ears discontinued and left out by the
reducing and narrowing of s' Ways, since the original laying out of
the same, and it passed in the affirmative."
A committee was chosen to devise some method of dividing
the lands.
Suits Ordered to Ou the 2(j'" of March, the town voted to
Recover these commeuce suits to recover all the lands
alluded to in the above votes, " Some persons
having of late years as the Town apprehends, without
right entered into and taken possession of some parts of
s'' land." Joseph Hawley and Ebenezer Hunt were chosen
agents to carry out the vote. In May they were ordered to
proceed in the matter of the trespassers, in case they should
be advised thereto by the " Learned in the Law."
Action for Trespass I^ August, an attempt was made to revoke
Against Timothy tbe above vote, but without success. Evi-
dently the '
' Learned in the Law " advised
that the town had a good case against the trespassers, and
an action was commenced in September to recover from
Timothy Dwight a tract of land in the northeast i^ffrt of
the town, between the county road to Hatfield and the Connecticut
River. It contained fifty-two and three quarters
acres, was fenced and described as a sheep pasture. The
decision of the lower court was in favor of the defendant,
but the town appealed the case to the Superior Court, which
reversed the former verdict, and gave the plaintiffs possession
of the land together with costs of court. The next
year the town refused to give Dwight a title to the premises,
but in 1750, when the case came again before the
court, on a plea of ejectment, the parties agreed that the
former judgment should be reversed and no costs granted.