act following the terms of the governor's commission provided for appeals in cases of error to the Governor and Council from any Supreme Court judgment above the value of ,£lOO and from thence to the King in Council from any decree or judgment above ,£3OO. The conditions governing appeals were similar to those in the earlier statute. 75 These provisions were re-enacted in a 1692 act 7C which was continued by later statutes until 1698. 77 In the proprietary province of East New Jersey, where no royal instructions obtained, an act of assembly was passed in March, 1682/3, providing for appeals to the King in Council from judgments of the Court of Common Right. 78 The provisions of the act were substantially similar to those of the New York act of November, 1683. 79 But it appears that appeals were taken by crafty litigants or were threatened for the purpose of delay and vexation, 80 since in December, 1683, there was passed An Act to Prevent Vexatious Delays in Law. The evil aimed at was the suspension of execution by vexatious appeals to the King in Council from judgments of the Court of Common been taken to the King in Council; see PC 2/68/371; PC 2/69/268, 634. But this court was abolished in 1684 as useless (1 Col. Laws N.Y., 171; 2 Van Rensselaer, History of the City of New Yor\ (1909), 282; Goebel and Naughton, Law Enforcement in Colonial New Yor\, 19-20). 75 1 Col. Laws N.Y., 226. The provision that appellant first pay all debts, costs, and damages adjudged against him in any other suit in the province was omitted. If default were made in prosecution to effect, then execution was to issue out upon the judgment against the party or their sureties in course, without any scire facias. The act made no provision for an appeal to the King in Council from decrees of the Governor and Council as a court of chancery. 73 Ibid., 303. 77 Ibid., 359, 380. 78 Learning and Spicer, Grants and Concessions . . . of New Jersey, 238. Under this enactment the Court of Common Right was supreme within the province; an attempt to appeal therefrom to the Governor and Council was rejected (13 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.J., 103; Journal of Courts of Common Right and Chancery of East New Jersey, 1683-1702 [ed. P. W. Edsall, 1937], 16-17). Cf. 3 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.J., 4; Tanner, The Province of New Jersey, 1664-1738 (1908), 459. 79 Supra, p. 84. The statutes differed in that in New Jersey the appeal was to be prosecuted to effect and return made thereof within eighteen months after the appeal was made; in New York the period was twelve months. Also in New Jersey there was no minimum necessary for an appeal; in New York a ,£ioo minimum was necessary. In practice it may have been necessary to show cause for allowhave been necesary for appellant-defendant to A time limit of ten days for taking the appeal also appears to have been imposed (ibid., 293). In case of money judgments it seems to have been necessary for appellant-defendant to deposit the amount of the judgment with the court upon appeal (ibid., 294-95). 80 It is stated that "by the fall of 1683, experience indicated that delay rather than reversal might prompt defendants cast to appeal to the King" (Edsall, op. cit., 62). But from the establishment of the Court of Common Right in May, 1683, to December, 1683, the date of the corrective statute, only two appeals were taken. In Vicars v. Slater an appeal was granted under the usual conditions to defendant Vicars in an action of trespass and false imprisonment in which £4$ damages had been awarded (Edsall, op. cit., 166; May 9). In Carteret v. Williamson defendant petitioned for an appeal in a trespass and ejectment action and was ordered to give in security within four days to prosecute with effect and not commit waste (ibid., 171; August 30). In neither case had the statutory eighteen months for prosecuting the appeal lapsed. There appears little evidence of any "experience"; the act may have been based upon legislative fear.