. 3 Hutchinson, Massachusetts Bay, ed. Mayo
, 67. That the writs were general appears from Hutchinson's description of the event.
This conclusion is supported by a phrase in Otis' argument at note
below, as well as by Hutchinson's remarks in the second writs of assistance argument
in Nov. 1761. Quincy, Reports
52. Shirley was probably acting under the authority given to the governor, or one
delegated by him, to seize illegally entered goods under 6 Geo. 2, c. 13, §3 (1733).
He may also have relied, as “chief magistrate,” on the provisions of 12 Car. 2, c.
19, §1 (1660), which permitted search of any premises for specific goods. See text
at note 5