from. 185 The Committee, to which the matter was referred, forwarded to the 
crown law officers for their consideration and report only that part of the 
petition which dealt with admission of persons to appeal without limitation of 
time. 186 Nothing eventuated from this reference, and a few years later Governor 
Shirley wrote that the courts of the province disputed the right of the 
King in Council to hear appeals in real actions, and therefore would not 
oblige parties to give their evidence in writing, so that for lack thereof the 
King in Council would be at a loss to proceed upon hearing appeals. 187 
Several years later this reluctance to admit appeals in real property cases was 
again pointed out, lss but no correction was attempted. 
Although direct evidence is lacking, it is probable that the events which 
culminated in the American Revolution strengthened the reluctance to allow 
appeals in real actions. In May, 1769, one Nathaniel Donnell complained to 
the General Court that in an ejectment action by one Sargeant, the Superior 
Court of Judicature had refused an appeal to the King in Council from a June 
24, 1766, judgment on the basis of the charter provision, but that the Privy 
Council had later granted such appeal. Alleging this procedure to be new and 
extraordinary and in direct violation of the charter liberties and privileges, 
Donnell prayed a representation to the Council for dismissal of the appeal. 189 
185 PC 2/98/55. On September 14, 1743, a 
committee had been appointed by the provincial 
Council to consider what methods 
might be proper to be taken by the General 
Court respecting appeals to the King in Council 
which might be claimed and pursued by any 
person or persons from any judgments passed 
in the provincial courts in real actions (20 
MS Mass. Archives [Foreign Relations, 1658— 
I 7S I I' 345)- The address presented, after relating 
the charter provision as to appeals, set 
forth that of late complaints had been made of 
the province courts disallowing appeals in real 
and mixed cases and that complainants desired 
exemption from the charter provisions and new 
and particular ordinances in their particular 
cases. If this were obtained, it would alter the 
constitution and utterly destroy the repose and 
quiet of tire subjects. Reasons marshaled 
against allowance of appeals in real and mixed 
actions were: («) the great confusion caused 
by allowance of such appeals without limitation 
of time, attacking lands improved or distributed 
among heirs or assigns; (b) the 
financial inability of more than two-thirds of 
the inhabitants to defend such appeals; (c) 
the impossibility of presenting before the King 
in Council the personal knowledge of juries of 
the vicinage; {d) the privilege as English subjects, 
granted by the charter, to have inheritances 
tried by juries of the vicinage {ibid., 
349)- 
186 PC 2/98/230. 
187 CO 5/886/GG 21. Undermining conciliar 
jurisdiction by refusal to put evidence in 
writing was not original with Massachusetts, 
for in 1709 it was complained from Jersey that 
"en plusieurs cas ils [the Royal Court] refusent 
de rediger par escrit depositions des 
temoins, ce qui faict que dans des appeaux ou 
doleances qu'on amene devant sa Majeste en 
son conseil, les parties grevees ne pouvants 
faire voir les faicts dont ils'agit, il leur est 
bien difficiile d'en tirer justice" {Reateil de 
quelques griefs publics des habitants de L'lsle 
de Jersey [London, 1709] 7 [Soc. Jer. Lib.]). 
Cf. the 1789 statement of Hemery and 
Dumaresq (A Statement of the Mode of Proceeding, 
and of Going to Trial in the Royal 
Court of Jersey, 15) that "the evidence is either 
taken down in writing, or it is received viva 
voce only, at the option of the parties. For, 
when an appeal is intended, each party may 
demand the taking down of the evidence, and 
that is granted of course." 
lss Add. MS, 15, 488/100. 
189 22 MS Mass. Archives {Foreign Cones., 
1758-J5), 539-40. For the appeal denial see