A few scattered disallowances are found at later dates. In reporting in 1708 
upon a Nevis act for the establishment of courts, the Attorney General represented 
that the law was improper in not reserving a power of appeal. 246 For 
this reason, among others, the act met with disallowance on December 30, 
1708. 246 In February, 1713/4, a Pennsylvania act for regulating party walls 
and buildings in Philadelphia encountered disallowance, the objection being, 
among other things, that no appeal was allowed therein to the King in Council 
247 In 1772 an act of the Bahamas was disallowed, on the ground that it 
prohibited appeals to the King in Council from the special court created 
thereby. 248 Common colonial enactments were those regulating the fees for 
various legal proceedings and documents. We have seen no attempt to hinder 
appeals to England by fixing exorbitant charges for copies of the proceedings 
necessary on appeal. We do find complaint in 1736 against Wavel Smith, Leeward 
Islands Secretary, that in chancery appeals the parties were forced to 
take out new copies of the proceedings, Smith refusing to authenticate those 
used below. 249 
Colonial efforts to circumvent the crown's appellate authority were not 
confined to attempted legislative denials, but sometimes took the form of 
executive recusancy. Opportunity for this was enhanced in those colonies in 
which the governor, a veritable Poobah, acted as Chancellor, Ordinary, and 
Chief Justice of the Court of Errors. Charges of such arbitrary denials of 
appeals were leveled against Governor Lowther, of Barbados, in 17i9. 2no A 
few years earlier from Jamaica had come complaint that actions of the governor 
as Chancellor were practically without review. In the first place, the 
instructional minimum limited appeals to causes of subject matter. 
Secondly, the governor controlled departure from the island; sometimes leave 
242 Ibid., 862. For the act see ibid., 683 
243 Ibid., 862. For the act see ibid., 702. 
244 Ibid., 860. 
245 Col., 1708-9, #250; cf. ibid., #264 said that "this prohibition, tho' it seems as fit 
246 PC 2/82/226. in the case of such a Special Court, as it can 
247 2 Stat, at Large Pa. 543. For the objections be in any, is altogether inconsistent with the 
to the act on the part of Solicitor General constitution of the colony" (5 APC, Col., 
Raymond see ibid., 550. For the act itself, see #212). 
ibid., 368. 2i9 JCTP;j 73 4/5~i 74 i, 122-23. 
248 The disallowed act was An Act for erecting 250 A Representation of the Miserable State of 
a special Court and better establishing and Barbados (1719), 25, 35.