that appeals be made within a fortnight after sentence. 70 The Maryland 1691 
and 1694 instructions followed the 1685 Virginia instructions closely, except 
for the fortnight limitation. 71 The New Hampshire instructions of 1692 also 
followed the Virginia model closely, but contained a minimum. 72 
As to appeals in criminal causes, it was provided in a few instructions after 
1689-90 that appeals be permitted to the Privy Council in all cases of fines imposed 
for misdemeanors, providing the fine amounted to or exceeded 
sterling (in Bermuda and that the appellant first give security effectually 
to prosecute the appeal and answer the condemnation in case of affirmance 
73 
These royal commissions and instructions regulating the appellate process 
were supplemented in a few instances by the acts of colonial legislatures. In 
New York, while it was still a proprietary colony, an act of November, 1683, 
permitted appeals to the King in Council from both Chancery and the new 
Court of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery where the subject 
matter amounted to Conditions which had to be met by appellants included 
the giving of security to prosecute the appeal with effect. 74 A later 1691 
ernor refused to join in this address to the 
King, but expressed a willingness to join in 
an address setting forth the grievances occasioned 
by allowing appeals over a minimum 
of £100 and supplicating that no appeal lie 
under .£3OO of which few judgments were 
there passed {ibid., 243); see also, ibid., 248- 
49; CSP, Col, 1681-85, #1698. 
70 1 Labaree, Royal Instructions, $446; cf. 1 
Executive Journals of the Council of Colonial 
Virginia, 516-17. 
71 1 Labaree, Royal Instructions, $446; cf. 
the appeal provision in the 1691 commission 
to Governor Copley (8 Md. Archives, 266; 
23 ibid., 548), and the 1694 Nicholson commission 
terms (20 ibid., 86-87). 
72 1 Laws of New Hampshire, 513; cf. the 
enigmatic statement of Lieutenant-Governor 
Usher as to appeals to the King up to ,£5O 
(CSP, Col, 1693-96, #2105). 
73 The instruction issued for Jamaica in 1689; 
for Bermuda in 1690 (1 Labaree, Royal Instructions, 
#458). The 1690 instructions to 
Governor Sloughter of New York contained 
such a clause (3 Doc. Rel. Col Hist. N.Y., 
688), but later instructions and commissions 
of this period failed to include it. The instruction 
originated in a desire of some of 
the considerable inhabitants of Jamaica expressed 
to the Lords Committee (CO 391/6/ 
233)- 
74 1 Col Laws N.Y., 128. This act provided 
that any inhabitant, planter, or freeholder 
within the province could appeal from any 
judgment or decree obtained against them in 
the High Court of Chancery or any courts of 
oyer and terminer and general gaol delivery 
to the King. The party appealing was first to 
pay costs in the suit appealed from and all 
debts, costs, and damages adjudged against 
him in any other suit in the province, to give 
in two securities by recognizance double the 
value of the judgment in question to prosecute 
the appeal with effect, and to make return 
thereof within twelve months. The £100 
limitation was an implicit infringement of 
the royal prerogative, as expressed in the 
patents, reserving the right of receiving appeals 
from "any judgment or sentence" given in the 
province; see 3 Thorpe, op. cit., 1638-39, 1642. 
But it was neither disallowed nor affirmed. 
However, despite the broad terms of the patent 
an appeal to the King in Council was earlier 
denied in Billop v. West from a June 6, 1683, 
New York City Mayor's Court judgment (3 
Doc. Rel Col. Hist. N.Y., 366). The petition 
for leave to appeal mentioned the patent 
reservation of appeals to the King in Council. 
The grounds of the denial do not appear; see 
Select Cases of the Mayor's Court of New 
City, 1674-1784 (ed. R. B. Morris, 1935), 648 
et seq. The act made no provision for appeals 
from the General Court of Assizes, the former 
superior court, from which three appeals had