tice. 2SO Such standing order would appear to operate inequitably in view of 
the fact that appeals were so diverse in their nature and procedural course. 
Distinguishing "costs" from "damages" it appears that the Council either could 
not or would not award damages upon appeal. 251 
THE MASON LITIGATION IN NEW HAMPSHIRE 
For a more consecutive appreciation of the Committee and the Council Board 
in operation let us consider the conciliar career of a single cause. A celebrated 
litigation much before the Council and the Committee concerned the claims 
of the heirs of John Mason to lands in the royal province of New Hampshire. 
Enforcement of these claims was vigorously resisted by settlers upon the lands 
under alleged Indian and Massachusetts Bay grants. 252 In the commission to 
President Cutt in 1679 the possibility of some dispute as to the ownership of 
lands was contemplated. The commission recognized the validity of the 
Mason claims and empowered President Cutt and the Council to interpose 
and reconcile all differences between Robert Mason and the inhabitants of the 
province. If the President and Council could not effect a reconciliation in a 
cause, they were to send such cause to England, together with their opinions 
thereon, for determination by the King in Council. 253 The inhabitants, however, 
were suspicious of any extra-provincial settlement of the disputes, and 
legislation was passed which in effect tended to nullify the operation of the 
commission provisions. 2s4 The clause allowing appeals to the King in Council 
charges in prosecuting the appeal at /)20 
(CSP, Col., 1677-80, #1311 I). 
250 There is no mention of £20 costs in any 
later affirming or reversing Order in Council; 
cf. Scott v. Dyer, where petition was made and 
granted for allowance of certain costs much 
greater than (ibid., 1683-88, #1565, 
1739)- 
251 Appellant, during pendency of his appeal 
in Hanson v. Rex, sued Gov. Dutton in the 
English law courts claiming damages for 
the same acts involved in the appeal 
(ibid., 1681-85, #1384). Hanson stated that 
he was informed that the Council could not 
award damages; he also objected to the manner 
in which the Committee was handling his appeals 
as detrimental to his interests (ibid., 
#1390). The Lords Committee left it to the 
free election of Hanson whether he would 
prosecute his action at law or attend the determination 
of his appeals at the Council 
Board (ibid., #1391). When Hanson elected 
to proceed with his action at law in England, 
the appeals were ordered dismissed; but the 
rehearing of a criminal cause in which Hanson 
was defendant was remitted to the Court of 
Grand Sessions in Barbados (PC 2/70/75; 
CSP, Col., 1681-83, #1408, i 4I o; cf. PC 
2 /7°/94» 99)- Note that appellant was directed 
to sue locally for damages in Mingham v. 
Martin, an appeal from a Jamaica judgment 
in a defamation action {PC 2/68/267). 
252 fry, New Hampshire As a Royal Province, 
209 et seq. 
253 1 Doc. and Rec. Rel. Prov. N.H., 381-82. 
It was apparently claimed in some quarters 
that this provision in the commission was provided 
for cases in which Mason's claim was 
flatly rejected and not limited to disputes incidental 
to enforcing a recognized right (Trans. 
Orig. Doc. Rel. N.H., 92; 17 N.H. State Papers, 
545-46); see also Cranfield's opinion, infra. 
254 The first General Assembly of March 16, 
1679/80, enacted inter alia that all lands, 
townships, and town-grants with all other 
grants lying within the limits of the province 
and all other rights and properties should 
stand good and be confirmed to the towns