About this time there arose in connection with both Connecticut and Rhode 
Island dispute as to appeals where charters lacked any reservation. From both 
the standpoint of importance and that of chronology Connecticut deserves the 
initial consideration. 46 In February, 1698/9, two petitions from this colony 
were presented to the Council, one of Edward Palmes and John Hallam, the 
other of John and Nicholas Hallam. The former prayed direction for the 
allowance of an intracolonial appeal which had been denied below, with 
liberty of further appeal to the King in Council; the latter was addressed to 
the King's grace. 47 The Board of Trade to which the matter was referred ad- 
Council to Chief Justice Holt to be attended 
therein by the crown law officers (PC 2/77/ 
376). But nothing further appears to have 
been done in the matter. 
46 In 1693 the struggle had been forecast when 
Governor Fletcher of New York complained 
that Connecticut allowed no appeals from its 
courts (CSP, Col., 1693-96, #650). 
47 PC 2/77/302. The former petition alleged 
that petitioners' ship, the Liveen, had been 
seized in New London harbor in June, 1691, 
under color of a County Court order by Fitz- 
John Winthrop, Samuel Fosdick, and Richard 
Christopher without any action having been 
brought concerning the ship. Petitioners commenced 
suit in September, 1698, in the 
County Court but were nonsuited; an application 
for an appeal to the Court of Assistants 
was denied (CSP, Col., 1699, #119). In the 
latter petition it was alleged that petitioners' 
mother, a widow, had married one John 
Liveen, who being non compos mentis had 
willed the greater part of his estate to others 
than petitioners and their mother; that if the 
will were set aside, there being no heir at law 
or next of kin, the estate would escheat to the 
King, whom petitioners prayed to grant them 
his interest and title therein {ibid., #120). 
To understand these petitions it is necessary 
to recapitulate certain previous events in the 
colony. At a "special" court held at New 
London, March 6, 1690/1, the October 19, 
1689, the will of John Liveen was exhibited, 
proved, accepted, and ordered recorded. This 
will devised to the ministry of New London 
a house and land adjoining, a remainder interest 
in Ys of the entire realty following a life 
estate in the widow, and also made the above 
ministry residuary legatee. Fitz-John Winthrop 
and Edward Palmes were named as joint executors 
with the widow (MS Conn. Archives, 
1 Misc. #94). But Palmes and the widow 
refusing to make division accordingly, an action 
was brought by Saltonstall, die New 
London ministerial incumbent, to have the 
executors set out the ministerial land. In a 
"special court of adjournment" held at New 
London, March 26, 1691, the jury found for 
plaintiff minister (ibid., $96). Palmes refused 
to attend this court on the ground that such 
attendance would be a breach of loyalty until 
the crown gave assent for the establishment 
of courts of record in the colony (ibid., $-97). 
A writ being directed to the constable of New 
London to levy under judgment, the ship 
Liveen was seized in March or April, 1691, 
under the authority thereof (ibid., #98, 99). 
But prior to such seizure the ship had been 
sold by executors Palmes and Liveen to John 
Hallam, a son of the widow, and one Pygan, 
the latter reselling his interest to Palmes 
(ibid., #115). At a September 20, 1698, New 
London County Court a nonsuit was granted 
in an action by Palmes and Hallam against 
Winthrop, Richard Christopher, and Samuel 
Fosdick for .£2,500 damages for seizure of 
the Liveen (ibid., #113). The basis of the 
nonsuit was the Statute of Limitations, it 
having been agreed by the parties and allowed 
by the court that the laws of England should 
be made use of (53 MS Conn. Col. Rec, 
1659—1703, 11—12 [vol. in reverse]). Cf. 7 
MS County Ct. Trials (New London) 198 
(Conn. State Lib.). Refused an appeal Palmes 
and Hallam moved the cause by way of complaint 
to the Court of Assistants (MS Conn. 
Archives, 1 Misc. #115). This court was of 
the opinion that for maladministration the 
remedy was in the General Court. But since 
the cause had been moved by complaint rather 
than by appeal, there was no legal remedy to 
carry the cause further. The main contention 
of Palmes and Hallam was that the Statute of 
Mortmain (7 Edward I) being applicable, the 
devise to the ministry was null and void and 
the realty so devised should go to the heir, the