heard on the merits, and the judgment below was affirmed in January, 
i7°3/4- G6 
It is necessary to treat various simultaneous happenings in sequence. A situation 
similar to those in Connecticut and Rhode Island was presented in the 
proprietary Carolinas. The Cole and Bean galley was condemned in the 
Charleston Vice-Admiralty Court in 1699/1700 for failure to possess the register 
or certificate required by 7 and 8 William 111, c. 22, 87 and an appeal therefrom 
was denied. 68 Complainant's petition was referred by the Earl of Jersey 
to the Board of Trade, which ordered a copy of the proceedings sent to the 
crown law officers for their opinion thereon. 69 At a further consideration of the 
matter by the Board of Trade, however, it appeared that the appeal refused had 
been to the High Court of Admiralty. Thereupon, petitioner-owner Crosse was 
directed to take the opinion of the Attorney General whether the appeal might 
not yet be admitted either to the King in Council or to the High Court of 
Admiralty. 70 The Attorney General refusing to answer this query without a 
direction from the Board of Trade, 71 the Secretary thereof desired that officer's 
opinion whether an appeal would lie to either the King in Council or the 
High Court of Admiralty in the instant case and whether it might not be 
brought before whichever body pleased appellants. 72 Attorney General Trevor 
Misc. #128-30, 133, 135; 5 Winthrop Papers, 
123-25, 134—35; 4 Pub. Rec. Col. Conn., 
430-31. Winthrop was advised by Ashurst that 
if Hallam came over for the hearing, it would 
be necessary for Winthrop himself to come 
over or to dispatch one or two well-instructed 
persons, "for affidavids are not so much in 
need as persons viva voce" (5 Winthrop 
Papers, 136). 
06 PC 2/79/489, 494. It has been stated that 
respondents having exhibited at the Council 
hearing the original bill of sale of the Liveen 
to which appellant was a witness, it was regarded 
as an acknowledgment on his part of 
the validity of the will (Caulkins, op. cit., 
226). The matter of allowance of costs still 
remained to be settled (5 Winthrop Papers, 
213-14). 
67 The owners claimed that the ship was a 
French prize which had been lawfully condemned 
and belonged wholly to petitioners; 
that it was registered with Sir John Shaw, 
the London Collector of Customs, and had 
his certificate of freedom of March 17, 1695 
(CSP, Col., lyoo, #432 iii), which was alleged 
to be as complete as those required under 
the act of Parliament; that petitioners were 
ignorant of the law or else they would have 
furnished the certificate required. It was also 
alleged that Morton, the judge of the Admiralty, 
refused good security offered and 
condemned the galley and cargo outright 
(ibid., #432 ii). Cf. the account of the Governor 
that merchant and master refused the 
offer of the court that if either would make 
oath that they had ever seen a register or that 
the owners had ever told them so, it would 
let them have ship and cargo upon giving 
security to produce a certificate from the 
Commissioners of the Customs (ibid., #32). 
For accounts of popular hostility to the cause 
of the informer see CO 5/13i2/#2i xi (a) 
(e). 
68 CSP, Col., 1700, #432 i, ii. 
69 Ibid., #460. Two questions were put for 
the opinion of either of the law officers: (1) 
whether Edmund Bellinger was properly qualified 
by law to make the seizure and prosecute 
as informer; (2) whether an appeal could 
lawfully be refused to the masters and owners 
of the said ship from the sentence given in the 
Vice-Admiralty Court (ibid., #462). 
10 Ibid., #544. 
71 Ibid., #569. 
72 It appears that on the trial below motion 
was made for an appeal, but the moving party