The London Trading Case of Elisha Walton v William Laird

By late 1781, disaffected Monmouth Countians had become skilled at trading illegally with the British. As discussed in prior articles, so-called “London Traders” served as middlemen between disaffected Monmouth Countians and British assets at Sandy Hook and New York. The trade commonly consisted of an exchange of finished goods and specie from New York in exchange for food and lumber from New Jersey. London Traders insulated disaffected farmers from direct contact with the enemy, making it more difficult to prosecute farmers fueling the illegal trade.

The London Trade was so pervasive and profitable that disaffected Monmouth Countians gained wealth at a faster rate than the county at large during the Revolutionary War (demonstrated by the author’s prior research). Despite the ostracism, property confiscations, and legal punishments associated with trading with the enemy, the hard cash paid by the British was exponentially more valuable than Continental money. An array of Whigs (people who supported Revolution) took steps to curb the illegal trade—privateers intercepted trading vessels; military parties impounded the goods of farmers living in disaffected neighborhoods; vigilante Whigs harassed and robbed disaffected families. But none of these efforts impacted the illegal trade very much.

Based on surviving documentation, it appears that Elisha Walton, a major in the militia and sometime legislator, had a particular passion for interdicting illegal trade. In spring 1779, Walton’s men took a wagon of expensive and rare silks from John Holmes and Solomon Ketchum, setting up the landmark litigation of Holmes v Walton in which the seizure of the silks was invalidated because the Holmes and Ketchum were denied their constitutional right to a full jury trial. Undeterred, Walton was called upon by the New Jersey Legislature in November 1780 to call up 100 militia in order to impound the livestock of disaffected shore residents. Walton would take action against illegal trading again in September 1781.

The Case of Walton v Laird

According to depositions taken on September 24, in early September, William Laird went to the house of Benjamin Covenhoven where an uncomfortable conversation between three men occurred. John Alward testified that Laird told him he was “bringing out some traders in Shrewsbury." Alward cautioned Laird, "if they be with you it will be bad for you.” But Laird told him that “Benjamin Covenhoven said he wanted some hard money and did not know how to get it.” Alward recalled that Laird told Covenhoven:

If you can or will sell oxen or cattle to me, I will take them to Joseph Thomson and then they will be in the Pines... The deponent understood that they was cattle to bring Joseph Thomson for the purpose of putting them in the way of getting to the enemy.

Alward also remembered Laird’s anger at Covenhoven for speaking about the traders out loud: “Mr. Laird attacked him pretty rashly about his bringing out the traders."

Peter Wikoff, a former Continental Army officer who distinguished himself at the Battle of Monmouth, testified a few days later that cattle intended for the Continental Commissary (John Lloyd) were driven away by Laird for Joseph Thomson instead:

Joseph Thomson came to said deponent and bought of this deponent, 5 fat cattle… for John Lloyd, and expected that the abovesaid John Lloyd would be at his house when he came home and that two of the cattle would kill'd that day, and this deponent further saith that William Laird helped the said Thomson drive the cattle away.

Lloyd never received the cattle because it went to Thomson. Elisha Walton led a posse that captured the cattle and arrested Thomson, Laird, and David Cook (assisting Laird in driving the cattle to Thomson).

The case of Elisha Walton v William Laird and David Cook was heard at Freehold on October 5, 1781. Depositions, including the ones excerpted above, were presented by Freehold Township Magistrate Denice Denice. Court papers document that Laird would not cooperate: "he did not intend to have anything to do in the case & would make no defense."

Joseph Thomson, the London Trader who received the cattle, implausibly testified that "he knew nothing of the cattle in question, he does not know how they came to his pasture and had nothing to do with them.” Thomson also said, “He never agreed with Mr. Laird for them [the cattle], Mr. Laird never sold to him.” On cross-examination, Thomson acknowledged that “Mr. Laird told him that he might expect them, and that he [Laird] came to his house very late at night." Thomson inferred that he was receiving cattle for the Army. But John Lloyd testified that "he never gave Joseph Thomson authority to purchase cattle for him.”

Other men corroborated details on behalf of the prosecution. James Harbert testified about Cook’s role in the plot: "David Cook asked the defendant whether he drawn any oxen for Mr. Thomson, the defendant answered that he had not, he was then told [by Cook] that Major [Elisha] Walton had seized them and said 'If Thomson will not own them, I will.’” William Johnston testified that "the general character of Mr. Thomson is that of one who carries on commercial intercourse with the enemy." The Freehold jury condemned the oxen to Walton as a valid seizure.

William Laird appealed the verdict to the New Jersey Supreme Court based on two arguments:

1. First, because "it does not appear from the evidence of said Justice that any evidence was given to a jury that William Laird or any person acting on his behalf attempted to carry or convey said oxen within the enemy's lines." By working through Thomson, Laird asserted plausible deniability about the intention to trade with the British.

2. Second, "because the capricious conversation of a certain Joseph Thomson were admitted to be given as evidence."  Thomson, as a convicted London Trader, was presumably known as a man of bad character whose testimony should have been disregarded by the court and not used against Laird.

In the Supreme Court trial, Joseph Thomson, James Harbert, and David Cook testified. Burlington County attorney Bowes Reed represented Laird; William Wilcocks represented Walton. 

Interestingly, Wilcocks represented John Holmes against Walton in Holmes v Walton in 1779-1780. But in 1781, Wilcocks co-founded the Monmouth County Whig Society—an association devoted to preserving the value of paper currency and combating the London Trade. So, Walton was now a logical client.

The New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision is not known. The case of Walton v Laird serves as an excellent lens for understanding the dozens of cases like it related to the London Trade—but lacking documentation. Fortunately, because Walton v Laird was escalated to the Supreme Court, the court papers and depositions related to the original trial in Freehold have survived.

London trading, and attempts to corral the disaffected farmers who participated in it, would remain a problem through the end of the war.

Related Historic Site: Allen House

Sources: New Jersey State Archives, Supreme Court Cases, microfilm reel 24707, Laird v. Walton; Michael Adelberg, “Destitute of Almost Everything to Support Life: The Acquisition and Loss of Wealth in Revolutionary Monmouth County” in The American Revolution in New Jersey (Rutgers University Press: 2015).