practice no minimum existed, 219 and there was no time limitation for taking 
a writ of error. 220 Further, a writ of error suspended execution, although 
security was necessary in many cases. 221 
As to the nature of the record transmitted from the colonial courts, the 
usual conciliar order directed the governor to transmit authentic copies of 
all proceedings in the cause under seal. 222 But in some instances upon admission 
of an appeal freedom to take further evidence was also granted the 
parties. 223 The tenors of the records transmitted exhibited variance, in the case 
of the New England colonies, with English standards. For in these governments 
upon appeal it was customary to review both law and fact, so that all 
the evidence submitted in a cause was incorporated in the record. 224 In the 
actual hearings the Committee evidenced no disposition to confine itself to 
review of errors of fact appearing in the record transmitted from below. 
Rather, since there was no discernible restraint upon examination of witnesses 
viva voce and the admission of new evidence, these hearings were essentially 
219 2 Tidd, Practice of the Courts of King's 
Bench and Common Pleas (1828), 1134. For 
the colonial instructional and commission minimum 
requirements see supra, p. 80 et seq. 
220 See the recital in 10 and n William 111, 
c. 14. For the 14 day limitation in conciliar 
appeals see supra, p. 81 et seq. 
221 2 Tidd, op. cit., 1145, 1149 et seq. Compare 
the conciliar regulations, discussed supra, 
pp. 105-6. 
222 Lane v. Stede (PC 2/73/243); Hubbard 
v. Smailes (PC 2/73/424); Elletson v. Daniell 
(PC 2/74/274); White v. de Castillo (PC 
2/75/253). 
223 See Vaughan v. Mason (N.H.; 8 N.H. 
Hist. Soc. Coll., 243-44); Lane v. Stede 
(Barb.; PC 2/73/243; PC 2/75/50; PC 2/76/ 
179). In Wright v. Cornwall (N.Y.) appellants 
were ordered to present their exceptions to the 
judgment appealed from and the respondents 
to answer thereto. Thereupon, a commission 
was to issue from the King to the governor 
of New York directing him to make inquiry 
of the facts mentioned in said exceptions and 
answer and to certify the same to the King in 
order to final determination of the appeal (CO 
391/4/143-44). In admitting several appeals 
of Jahleel Brenton from sentences of the Massachusetts 
Bay Court of Assistants in Navigation 
Acts seizures, the Council Board directed Governor 
Phips to give "directions that all Persons 
be permitted without Interruption to give 
Evidence, or discouragement to any to give 
their Testimony in behalfe of the Appellant, 
And that all Authentick Copies of all proceedings 
in the said Cases and of all Depositions 
taken thereon be transmitted" to the Committee 
under the Provincial seal (2 APC, Col., 
#480). Cf. Thayre v. Savage (Mass.), where 
the town of Braintree was ordered to transmit 
an authentic copy of an Indian deed and the 
Massachusetts Bay government to send such 
papers and records as should be necessary for 
final decision in the cause (PC 2/69/643). 
224 For the statutory bases in Massachusetts 
Bay of appeal upon both law and fact to an 
appellate body where further jury trial was 
had upon issues of fact see Col. Laws Mass., 
1672-86 (ed. W. H. Whitmore, 1890), 3, 4, 
129; 1 Acts and Res. Prov. Mass. Bay, 72-73. 
For die system in operation see 1 Rec. Ct. 
Assistants Mass. Bay, passim; cf. 1 Records 
Suffolk County Court, 1671-80, 29 Pub. Col. 
Soc. Mass. (1933), xlv. For the scant New 
Hampshire statutory authority see the provisions 
requiring jury trial upon appeals, 1 
Laws of N.H., 25, 543-44. On colonial practice 
of review of both law and fact cf. Reinsch, 
The English Common Law in the Early American 
Colonies, 1 Select Essays in Anglo-American 
Legal History (1907), 412. For the record 
transmitted in Barefoot v. Wadleigh from New 
Hampshire see CO 1/51/70 11-XII. For some 
discussion of the later Rhode Island and Connecticut 
systems see infra, p. 365 et seq.