Hartford in October, 1684, in an appeal from the Court of Assistants by 
Samuel Steele and Nathaniel Standly, a judgment of costs for the defendant 
Enock Buck in an action on the case for wrongful detention of lands was 
affirmed. 27 Whereupon a writ was delivered to the court signed by appellants 
and denominated an .appeal to the King. In answer thereto the court returned 
that it did not find anything in the patent granted by Charles II obliging it to 
grant the liberty of such an appeal in these cases, nevertheless, it would not 
"put a barr upon the lawfull liberty" of demandants so as to impede their appearance 
before the King or any of his courts. 28 There is no evidence that this 
cautious tender of battle was brought to the attention of the imperial authorities, 
but it foreshadows the uncompromising attitude exhibited by Connecticut 
a few decades later. 29 
The efforts of the Committee to extend appellate control to chartered colonies 
manifested itself in the provisions of newly issued charters. We have already 
seen that in 1681 a charter was granted to William Penn containing 
broad reservation of appeals to the King. 30 In 1691 a second charter was issued 
to Massachusetts Bay to replace that vacated by scire facias in 1684. This charter 
allowed an appeal to the King in Council to either party dissatisfied with the 
judgment or sentence of any judicatory or court in the province in any personal 
action in which the matter in difference exceeded the value of 
sterling. The appeal was to be made within fourteen days after judgment was 
given. Before the appeal was allowed, security was to be given by appellant 
to the value of the matter in difference to answer for the debt or damages for 
which the judgment was given with such costs as should be awarded in case 
of affirmance. Execution was not to be suspended by the appeal, provided the 
party taking out execution gave like security to make restitution in case the 
judgment should be reversed or annulled upon appeal. 31 It appears from the 
entries in the Committee journal that the Massachusetts agents present when 
the charter was being debated did not strive to exclude any reservation of 
appeals. The only question seemingly debated was the amount of security 
that should be given upon appeal. 32 However, it should be noticed that the 
27 3 Pub. Rec. Col. Conn., 161. 
zs lbid., 167. 
29 Compare the servile attitude of Rhode Island 
despite a similar absence of any reservation of 
appeals in its charter (CSP, Col., 1681-85, 
#1252). 
30 See supra, p. 53. The appeal reservation 
clause read as follows: "and Saveing and reserving 
to vs, Our heires and Successors, the 
receiving, heareing and determining of the 
Appeale or Appeales, of all or any person or 
persons, of, in or belonging to the Territories 
aforesaid, or touching any Judgement to bee 
there made or given." 
31 3 Thorpe, op. cit., 1881-82. For the first appeal 
granted under this charter see Butler v. 
Barton, Oct. 3r, 1693 (MS Mass. Sup. Ct. ]ud. 
Judgment Book., 1692-95, 84). 
32 Among the proposals offered by the New 
England agents for perfecting the charter was 
"that in appeals the security be equal to the 
value in dispute" (CSP, Col., 1689-92,