This cause was of more than ordinary interest, since it was part of the clash between the Kennebec Proprietors and the settlers in possession. 190 The General Court, in July, voted that the allowance of an appeal, although in a dispute about private property between individuals, nevertheless established a precedent that would be fatal in its consequences to the American colonies. Further, that both by the charter and the common law real actions were triable locally and that because of the poverty of the inhabitants causes could not be defended in England, resulting in a few rich litigants reducing the people to villeinage. Therefore, the provincial agent was to use his utmost endeavors to prevent the establishment of so fatal a precedent. For his assistance the agent was informed that an appeal claimed in Forsey v. Cunningham from New York "even in a personal action has lately been dismissed as not warranted by law." 191 Ex-Governor Pownall, consulted in the matter by the Kennebec Company, questioned whether prosecution of an appeal taken by the proprietors would not be derogatory to the charter. For, Pownall stated, under the British constitution appeal to the King in Council was unknown; it was only by charter compact that appeals to the King in Council were established. Since appeals could exist only in the cases stipulated in the charter, he wondered if the company would prosecute in case the instant cause were not included. 182 James Bowdoin replied that the company lawyers were of the opinion that the charter allowed an appeal to the King in Council as it was recited therein to be necessary "that all the King's subjects should have liberty to appeal to him," with no other limitation than that it should be "in cases that may deserve the same." This included real, personal, and mixed causes, and consequently the Kennebec Company's case. The next following clause of the MS Mass. Sup. Ct. ]ud. Judgment Book., 1766-67, 57. Cf. 9 Maine Hist. Mag. (1894), 186-88. For the petition for leave to appeal and the granting thereof see Jeffries v. Donnell, PC 2/112/520; PC 2/113/76, 88, 98. 190 In an earlier phase of this litigation the Kennebec Proprietors, claiming under a New Plymouth grant, petitioned the General Court in December, 1763, that many people were entering into the lands claimed by petitioners; that ejectment actions had been brought on both sides; that the judges at Pownalborough, in Lincoln County, had refused to try the cases because interested in the patent; that they would probably continue to refuse, thus leaving petitioners without remedy. It was therefore prayed that the actions might be removed to the Inferior Courts of Common Pleas in Middlesex, Suffolk, Essex, or Worcester counties (13 Coll. Maine Hist. Soc. [2d ser.], 352-56). But upon the answers of the inhabitants of Walpole, Herring Town, Freetown, Newcastle, Pownalborough, Georgetown, Woolwich, and of individuals Nathaniel Donnell and James Cargill the petition was dismissed in June, 1764 (6 MS Mass. Archives [Colonial, 7724-75], 534, 535; 13 Coll. Maine Hist. Soc. [2d ser.], 347-52, 359)- i9i 22 MS Mass. Archives (Foreign Corres., 1 758-75)> 54 1- 44- The vote was dispatched to agent William Bollan in October to use his endeavors to prevent the unknown mischiefs and inconveniences which would unavoidably result from the allowance of such appeals (ibid., 545). For discussion of Cunningham v. Forsey see infra, p. 390 et seq. 192 5 p roc , Uass. Hist. Soc. (1862), 237.