seen, rested in the interrelation of the criminal appeal and complaints to the 
crown against colonial executives. 232 
In the few chancery appeals taken during this period there is little that appears 
exceptional in the appellate scope, 233 but it must be remembered that 
months be allowed to collect the necessary 
evidence in the island. Governor Dutton, who 
had imposed the fine in a judicial capacity, 
was to cause the necessary proofs to be taken 
(ibid., #1368). That Dutton was to examine 
witnesses on both sides was unpalatable to 
Hanson (he had petitioned for commissioners, 
ibid., #1334), who turned to an action for 
damages in King's Bench (ibid., #1403). 
Thereupon, the infliction of a new fine upon 
Hanson was remitted to the Court of Grand 
Sessions (ibid., #1407). 
In Witham v. Rex, a 1685 appeal from three 
fines amounting to £ 11,000 imposed by the 
Barbados Court of Grand Sessions, it was 
ordered that liberty be given in the island 
without discouragement for the taking of the 
necessary evidence (ibid., 1685-88, #94~95, 
97). These fines were the result of the refusal 
of Sir John Witham, who had acted as 
lieutenant-governor, to render to Governor 
Dutton upon his arrival in the island die 
accrued salary and perquisites of said office 
(ibid., #94)- Cf. on the nature of the high 
crimes and misdemeanors and bribery charged, 
ibid., 1681-85, #2023. The presiding judge 
at the Sessions was Henry Walrond, who had 
been dismissed by Witham from the post of 
lieutenant-general (ibid., 1685-88, #95)- 
Commissioners were appointed by the Barbados 
Council (ibid., #247-48), but the commission 
was not free from interference by 
Walrond and Dutton (ibid., #254-56, 265, 
270, 300, 308, 336, 35»)- After hearing the 
appeal (ibid., #400, 421. 430, 44°). the Committee 
concluded that the proceedings appealed 
from .were violent and malicious, and 
recommended that the fines be wholly remitted 
(ibid., #439). This was accordingly ordered 
by the Council Board (PC 2/71/151)- 
Following the entry of an appeal in Vaughan 
v. Rex (PC 2/71/70), a conciliar letter issued 
to insure freedom of evidence collection in 
this and several other appeals (8 N.H. Hist. 
Soc. Coll., 243-44)- This appeal was from a 
£40 fine imposed at May 6, 1684, Quarter 
Sessions for assault upon a royal official (Petition 
and Appeal, Samuel Allen MSS). 
In Hallett v. Rex, a 1693 appeal from a 
£350 fine imposed in Bermuda, the Council 
Board ordered that permission be given appellant 
for examination of all persons that 
should give evidence, without molestation or 
discountenance to any whom appellant desired 
to be examined in his behalf (PC 2/75/247). 
Much of the evidence transmitted concerned 
the reluctance of the grand jury to find a 
true bill to an indictment that the words for 
which Hallett was fined were spoken "seditiously, 
maliciously, and rebelliously." A true 
bill was finally found on the condition that 
it was understood that the finding did not 
extend to the above adverbs (CO 28/2/116 
I). The depositions in this respect of Malaria 
Holder, one of the jury, were read at the appeal 
hearing. The Committee finally were of 
the opinion that it did not appear that Hallett 
had opposed the cutting down of his wood 
with any other intention than that it might 
be appraised and that he had received no recompense 
for such cutting (CO 391/8/150- 
51). The fine was therefore ordered remitted 
(PC 2/76/237). 
In 1693/4 Isaac Richier was given leave to 
appeal from all prosecutions in Bermuda, with 
no obstruction to be given to the examination 
of witnesses and the taking of depositions; 
copies thereof were to be transmitted to the 
Council Board under seal (PC 2/75/377). 
When tliis order was disregarded, a further 
order issued that Governor Goddard grant a 
commission to six persons equally divided in 
sympathies to take evidence in Richier's behalf 
(PC 2/76/241; CO 391/8/129). But 
this appeal was not heard during the existence 
of the Committee of Trade and Plantations. 
232 See supra, pp. 107-8. 
233 One of the appeals entered by William 
Vaughan following the general liberty of 
entering appeals granted him by the Council 
Board (PC 2/71/65) was Vaughan v. Martin, 
an appeal from a chancery decree (PC 2/ 
71/70). A copy of the petition and appeal is 
among the Samuel Allen MSS. Seemingly a 
conciliar order giving liberty to take any evidence 
in Vaughan's appeals was directed to 
Vaughan v. Mason, yet included this chancery 
appeal (8 N.H. Hist. Soc. Coll., 243-44). 
But at the hearing of the appeal there is no 
mention of presentation of such further evi-