announced their intention of sitting the next day as a Court of Appeals to hear and determine a cause moved by one Thomas Deane and others, where the Governor and Company were defendants, and accordingly summoned the parties. 360 The General Court met this challenge with a declaration proclaimed by trumpet proscribing the hearing. 370 Consequently the hearing was not held, and the commissioners terminated further negotiations, declaring that the matter was being referred to the King. 37l This stand of the colony in the matter of the appellate jurisdiction of the commissioners was set forth at some length in a justificatory narrative by the General Court. 372 The points elaborated upon in this narrative were the actions of the commissioners in the Porter and Deane episodes. It was related that although the charter granted full judicial powers, the commissioners had not executed a lawful sentence against a notorious offender (Porter) but afforded him protection until they could rehear and determine the case. 373 It was complained that although the charter was to be a sufficient discharge for putting laws into execution, the General Court and specific persons had been summoned before the commissioners to answer complaints involving rights between private parties and also the complaints of delinquents, 374 and furthermore that although the charter granted the colony legislative powers, the commissioners had declared that they would proceed to judgment in their appellate sessions according to their own discretion. 375 The committee had insisted that jury trial was a privilege of the subject, yet the commissioners had constituted a court of appeals without trial by jury and had stated that they and determining complaints and appeals." Therefore, the commissioners desired positive answer to the question "whether you do acknowledge his majesty's commission, wherein we are nominated commissioners to be of full force to all the intents and purposes therein contained." sa9 S Doe. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 107; 1 Hutchinson, op. cit., 211. The cause was that of Thomas Deane et al. against the Governor and Company, and Joshua Scottow (Danforth Papers, 83). 370 1 Hutchinson, op. cit., 211-13; Clarendon Papers, 68-69. 371 1 Hutchinson, op. cit., 213. This sudden termination was alleged to have silenced about thirty petitions desiring justice against the colony authorities (3 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., in). 372 The narrative of the transactions with the royal commissioners is found in 4 Rec. Mass. Bay (Part II), 157-273. 373 Ibid., 227-28. Compare the answer of Cartwright to the narrative on this point (Clarendon Papers, 93-94). 374 It was alleged that the commissioners had declared that they would not refuse complaints in cases decided more than twenty years earlier although the judges therein were dead (4 Rec. Mass. Bay [Part ll], 228; cf. ibid., 196). 375 Ibid., 228. But see ibid., 197, where the commissioners when asked by what law they would proceed to judgment answered, "By the law of England." See further Cartwright's statement that the reason for such answer was that the commissioners were commanded by their eleventh instruction "to giue such reparations to Thomas Dean as upon the merritts of the cause, and by virtue of the said act of Parliament he ought to receiue. But if they had been to haue heard John Porters caus they would haue considered the laws of that colony" (Clarendon Papers, 97).