purchased was upheld. Therefore, the sentence of the Court of Oyer and 
Terminer was reversed. 121 
A similar review process is found in Maryland. At a special Court of Oyer 
and Terminer, in January, 1692/3, the Margaret was condemned for violation 
of the Acts of Trade. 122 Although the reclaimant insisted upon a direct appeal 
to the King in Council, 123 he had to be satisfied with an appeal to the 
Governor and Council, "or further if occasion be." 124 The review granted in 
the Jamaica cause is sui generis, because of special conciliar intervention. In 
the case of Maryland the authority for the suggested hierarchy is not evident. 
The commission provision as to appeals to the Governor and Council was 
confined to civil causes. 125 The only instruction relating to appeals in criminal 
causes, however inapplicable, had not even been issued for Maryland. 126 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL 
Having thus canvassed the appellate jurisdiction of the King in Council in 
matters colonial, it remains to inquire into its exercise of original jurisdiction. 
Such jurisdiction was declined when one Alvaro Peres de Tavora complained 
in November, 1676, that he had been disseised of Bombay lands and goods by 
the East India Company. 127 The company protested, at a June, 1677, Committee 
hearing, that if the matter were not left to the local courts, encouragement 
would be given the inhabitants to decline the settled course of law. 
Further, the company could not produce witnesses and evidence at such a 
distance. 128 The Lords Committee thereupon agreed to report that, since it 
did not appear that petitioner had been denied justice upon a trial at law, it 
was not proper to give sentence in a cause which originally belonged to local 
courts established by charter. Therefore, petitioner was to be left to apply to 
such courts for redress. 129 This report was approved, and an order accordingly 
issued by the King in Council. There is some indication, however, that 
appellate jurisdiction would be assumed, although the controlling East India 
Company charter contained no appeal reservation. 130 
121 Ibid., sub June 30, 1690. For the restraining 
instructions see 1 Labaree, Royal Instructions, 
#421. 
122 CO 5/713/P 34- 
123 CO 5/713/P 35- 
12 " CO 5/713/P 34- 
125 g ee su p ra , p. yg. 
126 1 Labaree, Royal Instructions, #458. 
127 For the conciliar petition see Cal. Ct. Mins. 
East India Co., 1674-76 (1935), 379-81. For 
the company answer thereto see ibid., 387-89; 
for the reply of the petitioner see ibid., 1677- 
79 (1938), 9-11. 
128 CO 391/2/57. For notes of Sir Joseph 
Williamson on the hearing see Cal. Ct. Mins. 
East India Co., 1677-7 g, 49 • 
™ S CO 391/2/57; Cal. Ct. Mins. East India 
Co., i677~7g, 51-52. For the submission of 
the petitioner to the company and the restoration 
of his estate see ibid., 97-98, 141. 
130 For the charter relating to Bombay, where 
the matter arose, see Charters Granted to the 
East India Company (1773), 80.