trance in that province. In 1694, in the trespass and ejectment action of Coo\e 
(Alsop) v. Wandall in the Supreme Court, judgment was given for the plaintiff 
162 Upon appeal to Governor Fletcher and the Council judgment was 
affirmed in March, 1694/5. 163 When Bellomont superseded Fletcher as governor 
of the province, the earlier appellate judgment was reversed by Bellomont 
and his Council. 164 Application being made for an appeal therefrom 
to the King in Council during the absence of Bellomont from the province, 
the Lieutenant-Governor and Council denied the motion. The ground for 
denial was that the reversal having taken place during a session of the Assembly, 
the reversing body constituted a superior jurisdiction to that of the 
Governor and Council at other times. 165 
Bellomont, aware that denial of appeals to the King in Council was "the 
thing in the world most derogatory to the prerogative of the crown in this 
province," rebuked the Lieutenant-Governor and directed immediate notice 
to Alsop of leave to appeal. 166 Upon information of this appeal denial, the 
Board of Trade wrote Bellomont that wrong had been done in refusing the 
162 Mins. N.Y. Sup. Ct. ]ud., 1693-1701, 
NYHS, Pub. Fund Ser. (1912), 57, 58, 62. The 
cause concerned the construction of the January 
12, 1688/9, will of Thomas Wandall; 
whether a gift to his widow of "all and every 
part of my estate both goods and chattels" 
included realty. For the will see CO 5/1042/ 
H 11; for depositions that the testator intended 
the words to convey his realty see 
CO 5/1042/H 12-H 19. For an earlier petition 
of the widow to the Governor and Council for 
relief against vexatious suits by Alsop see 
Col. N.Y. Hist. MSS, Part II (1866), 237. 
163 7 MS Mins. N.Y. Council, 113, 115, 117, 
120. Assigned for error on the appeal were: 
(1) the declaration was not sufficient in law to 
maintain the action; (2) the jury was not 
sworn upon the holy evangelists of almighty 
God; (3) the jury brought in a general verdict, 
although charged to bring a special verdict; 
(4) judgment given for plaintiff should have 
been given for defendant. See the record in 
N.Y.H.R. Parch., 243-A-2. Rumor had it 
that William Nicolls obtained a good part of 
the estate for prevailing with Fletcher to affirm 
and that Fletcher had received £60 for his 
share in pronouncing judgment. Fletcher was 
observed to be very nervous and ill at ease 
(CSP, Col., 1699, #317). 
164 On May 1, 1699, Attorney General Graham 
upon being asked by Governor Bellomont and 
the Council "if this house during the Session 
of the Assembly had as part of that Constitution 
a Judiciall power to heare and Determine 
cases and causes of Law and Equity, and to 
vacate and Reverse decrees and Judgments, he 
Resolved that his Excellency and this House 
had a right soe to doe, and that they were 
vested with the powers aforesaid during the 
Sessions of the Assembly" (1 Journal Legislative 
Council New York. [1861], 134). The 
next day it was resolved that the matter of 
Audrey Wandall's petition be heard on May 
5, when all persons concerned were to appear 
with their evidence {ibid., 135). On May 8 
the parties appeared, and an address of the 
House of Representatives to the Council together 
with Wandall's will were read. After 
argument, consideration was deferred and 
Smith, C. J., was directed to take affidavits of 
all witnesses in the matter (ibid., 137). Unfortunately 
the lower house journal for this 
period is missing. Later in the day a petition 
of Richard Alsop was read and referred over 
(ibid., 138). On May 13 counsel were heard, 
and the will of Wandall and the depositions 
taken by the parties before Smith, C. J., were 
read. Thereupon, both previous judgments 
were reversed, and the widow was ordered 
restored to possession, as if no such judgments 
had ever passed (ibid., 141). See also CSP, 
Col., 1700, #872. 
165 8 MS Mins. N.Y. Council, Part I, 116; 
CSP, Col., 1699, #740. 
166 Ibid.