were given in evidence to a jury who upon such acts and other matters before 
them rendered their verdict, and that no error could be assigned upon such 
verdict. 287 Although judgment below was affirmed, 238 we have seen no evidence 
that this objection was seriously entertained. This case was the forerunner 
of the controversy of the next century centering around the colonial 
use of general and special verdicts, bills of exception, and appeals from judgments 
upon jury verdicts. 239 
The form of the report rendered by the Committee merely summarized the 
proceedings below and advised reversal, affirmance, or variance. Such bare 
form was purposely adopted. For after having heard the first New York appeal, 
Ward v. Palmer, on March 4,1679/80, the Lords Committee entered into 
debate, "whether it may be proper, in the affirmation of sentences by his 
Majesty in Council, to recite the allegations and proofs on both sides." The 
Lords finally were "of opinion that they ought to contain the bare resolution 
of His Majesty in Council upon the case as it is reported, least otherwise they 
might be subjected to the cavils of malicious persons." 240 
As we have seen, in contemporaneous Channel Islands procedure the rehearing 
was a prominent feature of conciliar practice. 241 But in the colonial field, 
in only one instance was a rehearing sought after a cause had been fully heard 
and reported. This single application was refused. 242 
In the various instructions issued regulating appeals, security was to be 
posted by appellant to answer "costs," 243 or "costs and damages," 244 or 
"charges" 245 awarded by the King in Council. Early in its career the Committee 
seems to have assumed that it possessed the power to award costs. 246 
After the appeals of William Vaughan of New Hampshire were decided by 
the Committee, petitions for allowance of costs were presented by the 
parties; 247 the Committee agreed to allow the respective successful parties 
costs. 248 It was also declared that in all appeals brought from the colonies 
the sum of costs should be allowed the party in whose favor judgment was 
given. 249 But it is questionable whether this order was followed in later prac- 
2i " CO 391/8/71. 
238 PC 2/76/168. 
239 See infra, Chap. VI. 
* ia CO 391/3/148. 
241 See supra, pp. 98-99. 
242 CSP, Col., 1685-88, #447. 
243 1 Labaree, Royal Instructions, #443- 
2ii lbid., #444, 449. 
245 Ibid., #445, 446- 
246 In Mingham v. Martin, an appeal from a 
Jamaica Vice-Admiralty Court condemnation, 
the Committee advised restitution without 
costs, since the seizure was colorable and the 
case had divers circumstances of suspicion 
about it (PC 2/68/267); see also CSP, Col., 
1677-80, #1313. 
247 Ibid., 1685-88, #1047-48; also ibid., 
#1002. 
2i *lbid., #1045; PC 2/7i/355-57. 
249 CSP, Col., 1685-88, #1046. It is not possible 
to determine how the figure of £20 was 
arrived at. Weare asked for £69 odd costs, 
Cranfield for £31 odd in two appeals; Mason's 
claims were much higher, see ibid., #1002, 
1047-48. Note that in the earlier New York 
appeal of Ward v. Palmer, appellant set his