three affirmances were due to nonprosecution. 365 In one appeal from a Barbados 
fine imposition, the sentence appealed from was declared null and void, 
but since the charges were grave, the cause was ordered reheard. 366 It is not 
possible on the basis of available evidence to make any sweeping generalizations 
concerning the quality of the appellate judgments rendered by either 
conciliar body. There is at least one case (which may be indicative) in which 
a High Court of Admiralty judge expressed an opinion on an appeal which 
differed from that later arrived at by the Council. 367 It should not be forgotten 
that the Committee was essentially an administrative body and more preoccupied 
with administrative enforcement than attainment of abstract justice between 
private litigants. Therefore, we may find that in individual appeals 
administrative considerations influenced judgment. The operation of such considerations 
is seen in appeals involving the logwood trade from Honduras 368 
and New York land titles. 389 There are too few appeals to permit more than 
one generalization as to the comparative merits of the judicial systems of the 
various colonies —judicial administration in Barbados stood most in need of 
conciliar correction. 
In addition to the quality of the appellate judgments, we must consider the 
365 Walton v. Walford (PC 2/70/107); Barefoot 
v. Wadleigh (ibid.) ; Hubbard v. Smailes 
(PC 2/73/424; PC 2/74/244). 
366 Hanson v. Rex, supra, n. 231. 
367 The opinion of Sir Richard Raines in 
Kirwan v. St. Loe. Compare CSP, Col., 
1685-88, #1280 with PC 2/72/481. 
368 This problem is indicated in the case of 
In re The Swallow. A practice had grown up 
in the colonies for owners of foreign-built ships 
to procure the condemnation of such ships 
under the Acts of Navigation on easy terms 
by compounding with governors for their share 
of the forfeitures, paying no more than the 
King's third part of the appraised value. By 
virtue of this certificate of condemnation, the 
ships were admitted as free within the tropics; 
this distinction was termed by the Commissioners 
of the Customs as without any ground 
or color of law (CSP, Col., 1685-88, #1221; 
see also ibid., #965, 1066, 1212). The Swallow, 
seized and tried in the Jamaica Vice- 
Admiralty Court, came within this category. 
In petitioning for an appeal captor Captain 
Talbot relied upon the above opinion of die 
Commissioners of the Customs (ibid., #1238). 
The appeal was allowed, but never prosecuted. 
But practical considerations of the effect on 
the logwood trade from Honduras of a conciliar 
determination upholding the view of the 
Commissioners of the Customs were not absent 
(ibid., #1580). For some discussion of 
the legal problems and administrative considerations 
concerned in the seizure of The 
Swallow see Harper, op. cit., 197-99. 
369 It was threatened that if the appeal in 
Wright v. Cornwall were upheld all land 
titles in New York would be upset (CSP, Col., 
1685-88, #846-47). This appeal followed a 
rather anomalous procedural course, with the 
merits of the question nowhere evident. Upon 
admission of this appeal from an October, 
1682, General Court of Assize judgment, the 
Council Board referred it to the Committee 
to examine and report thereon (PC 2/69/ 
634). The Committee then ordered that appellants 
put into writing their exceptions to 
the judgments below, that respondent reply 
in writing, and that then the whole case be 
referred to the governor of New York to 
report thereon (CSP, Col., 1681-85, # I 055)- 
Appellants later petitioned to refer the matter 
for answer to Sir Edmund Andros, who was 
present in England, thus sparing the expense 
of a commission (ibid., 1685-88, #681). The 
answer of Andros was probably sent, with the 
appellant's petition, to Governor Dongan to 
report (ibid., #846, 847). The case then 
disappears from conciliar sight.