the Judgment of Provincial Courts, under such their Charter Government 
or otherwise." 
Needless to say, no action was taken upon Abercromby's proposal. 
Although earlier charters to the East India Company contained power to 
erect judicatories, no provision for conciliar appellate recourse was made before 
the charter of 1726. Under this patent, mayor's courts were established 
at Madras, Bombay, and Fort William, with jurisdiction over all "civil suits, 
actions, and pleas, between party and party." Appeals could be taken within 
fourteen days from these courts to the respective presidents and councils, 
whose determinations were final in causes not exceeding the value of one 
thousand pagodas In causes above this minimum, further appeal to 
the King in Council, as was usual in cases of appeal from any of the West 
Indian colonies, was possible. Appeals were conditioned upon giving security 
to pay interest at 8 percent on the amount of the judgment and costs in case 
of affirmance, but execution was not suspended by taking an appeal. 215 It 
should be noticed that at this period the East Indian settlements were in the 
nature of a "factory," not a dominion of the crown. 216 
A later 1753 charter made additional provision in all cases in which there 
were insufficient disinterested members of any president and council to hear 
a mayor's court appeal. In these cases an appeal could be taken directly to 
the King in Council within twenty-one days of entry of judgment. In both 
categories of appeals appellant had to give security to pay interest, not exceeding 
the current rate, on the judgment and costs in case of affirmance. The respective 
presidents and councils were enjoined to see the judgments appealed 
from put into execution in case of neglect or refusal by the mayor's courts. 217 
In 1773, when this judicial establishment proved unsatisfactory, Parliament 
authorized a royal charter to the East India Company to establish a Supreme 
Court of Judicature at Fort William with full civil, criminal, admiralty, and 
ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The act further directed that such charter should 
allow of appeals to the King in Council in such cases and under such regulations 
as the King should judge proper and reasonable. 218 
215 Charters Granted to the East India Company 
(1774), 369-99. Appeal to the King in 
Council was also provided for in cases of removal 
from office of aldermen of the three 
municipalities by the respective presidents and 
councils. Such appeals had to be taken within 
fourteen days of removal, and security given 
for costs; the West Indian appeals were also 
used for analogy. See PC 2/89/215; PC 1/4 
(21), for the East India Company petition for 
further privileges in the administration of 
justice. 
216 See Lord Brougham in Mayor of Lyons v. 
East India Company (1 Moore P.C. 272). 
217 Charters Granted to the East India Company, 
406-56. In causes in which the East 
India Company was a party and had judgment 
against it in any mayor's court, the president 
and council automatically reversed the judgment 
below to afford opportunity to appeal 
to the King in Council; see Durand v. East 
India Co. (PC 2/109/293-95). 
218 13 Geo. 111, c. 63.