The evidence that is available affords very little information as to the method 
used to summon respondents before the Council or Lords Committee. When 
an appeal had been granted below a summons to answer the appeal at the 
Council Board might issue locally following the allowance of the appeal. 198 
Where an appeal was admitted in England by the Council in the first instance, 
the admitting conciliar order did not usually order respondent to appear and 
answer. Nevertheless, upon admission of some of Edward Randolph's appeals 
all the respondents were peremptorily ordered to appear within four 
months under dire penalties. 199 In Cooke v. St. hoe the burden was apparently 
upon appellant to give respondent notice of the admitting Order in Council. 200 
In other cases the burden of notice and summons was placed upon colonial 
officials. 201 No case has been found of any entry of appearance by respondents 
before the Committee, and only one before the Council. 202 In the second 
stage of the appellate process, when the Committee had appointed a day for 
hearing, summonses would issue to all parties to attend. 203 Such summons 
might be affixed upon the Exchange in lieu of personal service. 204 
In criminal causes, viz., causes in which appeals were taken from fines imposed, 
a procedure was adopted slightly different from that current in civil 
appeals. In these cases it was customary to transmit appellant's petition and 
appeal to the governor to answer before the appeal was heard. 205 The gov- 
that the judgment be affirmed and the appeal 
finally dismissed from the Board (PC 2/70/ 
107; CSP, Col., 1681-85, #I5I3)- The Barefoot 
v. Wadleigh appeal ran a similar course; 
see PC 2/70/48, 107; CSP, Col, 1681-85, 
$ J 35 Q > I 43 2 > 1448. It is alleged that Wadleigh 
took advantage of the absence of 
Edward Randolph, counsel for the appellants 
{ibid., #1012, XIV; #1013 III) to have the 
appeals dismissed by the Council Board {ibid., 
#1701). 
198 See CO 1/51/70 XIII; 71 11. 
199 2 APC, Col., #44. 
200 PC 2/71/330; PC 2/72/466. But respondent 
here was in the royal service. 
201 Bland v. Codd {PC 2/69/541); Thayre v. 
Savage (PC 2/69/643). 
202 See Bland v. Codd (PC 2/70/235). Compare 
the entry of an appearance by appellant 
William Vaughan in several New Hampshire 
appeals (PC 2/71/292). 
203 CSP, Col., 1681-85, #1374, 1377, 
1431-32. For the form of this Committee summons 
see CO 28/2/100, 103. 
204 See CO 391/4/249. 
205 See Hanson v. Rex, a Barbados appeal 
against a £150 fine (CSP, Col., 1681-85, 
#484, 515, 791). For Hanson's petition and 
appeal see ibid., $469. Governor Dutton was 
also ordered to answer two subsequent petitions 
of Hanson (ibid., #1167), in which two 
further appeals were taken (ibid., #1040). In 
Witham v. Rex, a Barbados appeal against 
three fines totaling ,£ 11,000, the petition and 
appeal of Sir John Witham was sent to Governor 
Dutton to answer (CSP, Col., 1685-88, 
#113). No answer was returned from Barbados, 
but at the hearing before the Committee, 
Dutton and Henry Walrond, who had 
presided at the Court of Grand Sessions, were 
ordered to answer the petition and appeal 
(ibid., #400). For the answers of Dutton and 
Walrond see ibid., #413-14. The answer of 
Dutton was transmitted to Witham (ibid., 
#412), who made replication thereto (ibid., 
#429, 430). After these preliminaries, the 
appeal was heard (ibid., #440). The petition 
and appeal of John Goldringham and Ralph 
Lane from X5O fines imposed in Barbados 
was referred to Governor Dutton to show cause 
why the fines should not be remitted (ibid., 
#516, 518). The answer of Dutton pleaded 
ignorance of the matter (ibid., #550); upon 
consideration of the petition the Committee