mission was intended by the designation; 323 a contemporary account mentions 
this appeal as to "the Princ and Chancellor." 324 In all probability either 
the King in Council or the Lords Commissioners for Foreign Plantations was 
the intended appellate body. 325 Winter also attempted to attaint the juries, 326 
but the jurors countered with actions of slander against Winter and forced 
abandonment of any attaint. 327 Finally, the General Court resolved the difficulty 
by a declaration that all actions in the province should be referred to 
arbitration, with one Stephen Bochiler as umpire. 32S Winter reluctantly submitted 
to this course, 329 although it later appeared that proprietor Gorges had 
entertained the appeal and ordered all proceedings stayed. 330 Trelawny also 
advised that in default of justice application could be made for Parliamentary 
warrant to cause the court to answer for their conduct in England. 331 
But with interest absorbed in domestic disturbances, seemingly no capital was 
made at home of this incident in the distant province of Maine. However, the 
episode is significant as illustrating the impracticality, under the circumstances, 
of a proprietary appellate system and the prevalent vague concepts 
of public appellate jurisdiction in England. 332 
LATER ROYAL CHARTERS 
The importance of charter provisions or the lack thereof as illustrated in the 
Child episode did not seemingly permeate English administrative consciousness, 
or else personnel changes incident upon the Restoration served to obliterate 
recollection. In the Connecticut charter granted in 1662 there was no provision 
inserted for appeals to the King, although there was a specific bestowal of 
323 For the jurisdiction of the Court of High 
Commission see Usher, The Rise and Fall of 
the High Commission (1913), 279, 338-41. 
324 Trelawny Papers, 315. 
325 Baxter assumes that the appeal was intended 
for King's Bench (Trelawny Papers, 
316, note; George Cleeve of Casco Bay, 99). 
326 Trelawny Papers, 263. For "the bill of 
errors and taynt" see ibid., 268-69. One 
Robert Jordan declared a year later that Winter 
exhibited "a petiton of appeale to the Princ 
and Chancellor, by plea of an attajnt agajnst 
the jurors in the action of interruption in the 
behalf of the King, becaus the articles of the 
commission heere (after the construction of 
the councellors for the Prouince) will allow 
no appeales in personall actions, but only in 
cases that concerne the Kinge" (ibid., 315-16). 
But the two commissions of Gorges contained 
no such limitation on appeals (1 Prov. and Ct. 
Rec. Me., 30-41). Although English practice 
allowed simultaneous writ of error and attaint 
proceedings (see 3 Dyer 284b), Jordan apparently 
interpreted Winter's procedure as the 
institution of attaint proceedings in order to 
obtain an appeal therefrom if necessary. 
327 Trelawny Papers, 318. 
328 Ibid., 319. 
329 Ibid., 269-72, 279-80, 319. 
330 Ibid., 273. 
331 Ibid., 274 
332 However, appeal to an English proprietary 
body was later utilized in Bermuda (2 Lefroy, 
op. cit., 49-50, 123, 169, 309, 418-19), in the 
Carolinas (CSP, Col; 1696-97, #149 I; E. 
McCrady, History of South Carolina under the 
Proprietary Government [1901], 693) and in 
the Bahamas (CSP, Col., 1701, #982). A 
1672 declaration of proprietary intent for New 
Jersey contained the provision that "all appeals, 
shall be made from the assizes, to the Governor 
and Council, and from thence to the Lords 
Proprietors; from whom they may appeal to 
the king" (5 Thorpe, op. cit., 2545).