City for assertion of his rights with force and arms Fenwick denied the jurisdiction of the court and insistently prayed liberty of appeal to the King. 344 Both upon verdict of guilty and judgment thereon Fenwick reiterated his demands for an appeal to the King; an appeal was finally allowed, upon his giving security of for the prosecution thereof. 345 But there is no evidence that this appeal was ever presented at the Council Board. In August, 1678, proceedings in New York against Fenwick, the jurisdictional plea and the appeal prayer were repeated and rejected. 346 Subsequently, in 1680, Philip Carteret, governor of East New Jersey, protesting the jurisdiction of Sir Edmund Andros, threatened an appeal to the King, 347 but Andros adverted to the impropriety of an appeal before judgment 348 Upon a May, 1680, presentment at a New York Court of Assizes for attempted exercise of powers of government with force, Carteret protested the jurisdiction and appealed to the King as the only proper judge in the matter. 349 But when the jury returned not guilty, 350 an appeal became unimportant. Unlike the Rhode Island controversy, this jurisdictional dispute never came before the Council Board. CONFLICTS BETWEEN ADMIRALTY AND COMMON LAW COURTS Another phase of conciliar jurisdiction, although of greater importance in the following century, was intervention in the ancient struggle of the admiralty and common law courts for jurisdiction. In June, 1676, the Committee had brought to its attention the case of the St. George, a slave-carrying interloper in territory restrained to Royal African Company traffic, seized at Jamaica and proceeded against in the Vice-Admiralty Court. Since the seizure was made upon waters declared by a local act to be part of the parish of St. Dorothy, the Jamaica common law courts ousted the Admiralty Court of jurisdiction. 351 Dr. Lloyd, to whom the matter was referred, was of the opinion that the locus of the seizure was super ahum mare and therefore within the admiralty jurisdiction; that it was not within the power of the Jamaica legislature to make the high seas part of a parish or to deprive the Lord High Admiral of jurisdiction; that therefore the depriving act of April 26, 1675, could not be of force to take away from the Duke of York jurisdiction granted by royal patent; that the statutes of 13 Richard 11, stat. I, c. 5, 15 Richard 11, c. 3, and 2 Henry IV, c. n, being made for England, were not in force in Jamaica, except by royal declaration 352 The Attorney General, also consulted, was of the opinion that the seq.; Tanner, The Province of New Jersey, 3is lbid., 301-2. 1664-1738 (1908), 5 et seq. 349 Ibid., 303-4- 344 1 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.J., 236-37. 350 Ibid., 304. For further account of the trial zib lbid., 237-38. see ibid., 316-17. 346 Ibid., 283. 351 CSV, Col., 1675-76, #957-58, 972. *« Ibid., 298. 362 Ibid., #972. 976-