Thereupon, the proctor and the agent of the owners presented to the Governor 
and Council an appeal from the Vice-Admiralty Court sentence. A debate 
arising as to whether the appeal was regularly brought or not, further consideration 
was adjourned until the next council day. 349 On June 21, upon resumption 
of the debate in the matter, the provincial Council, unable to find 
one precedent of like nature, was unanimously of opinion that if an internal 
appeal lay, it was to the governor alone, not to the Governor and Council as 
directed. The governor, anxious to mete out speedy justice, stated that he 
would receive the appeal, and the petitioners were ordered to alter their petition 
and appeal accordingly. 350 A commission was then issued by Governor 
Hamilton for a Court of Delegates to hear the appeal; the commissioners met 
at least twice, but apparently their authority to proceed in the matter was 
questioned. 351 However, the operative appeal in the cause was made to the 
Lords Commissioners for Prize Appeals, who on July 19, 1726, reversed the 
sentence of the Vice-Admiralty Court and ordered restoration of the vessel and 
cargo. 352 A bill was brought in under Governor Lawes, in 1718-19, to repeal 
the condemnation, but it failed to pass because of legislative disagreement. 353 
A similar cause appears in the Leeward Islands in Toller v. Bur\e. From a 
January, 1729/30, sentence of the Antigua Vice-Admiralty Court declaring 
the sloop Catherine forfeited for commission of piracy, an appeal was taken 
to the Court of Errors (the Lieutenant-Governor and Council), where the 
sentence was affirmed in part. Commander Toller thereupon appealed to the 
King in Council, alleging that the Court of Errors had no cognizance over 
admiralty matters. Upon ex parte hearing the contention as to lack of jurisdiction 
was upheld and the judgment of the Court of Errors reversed. 354 Pre- 
would be stayed, but that nevertheless the 
court had proceeded to sentence {ibid.). For 
diverse opinions as to whether Hamilton had 
power to interfere and halt the condemnation 
proceedings, see ibid., sub September 12, 1716. 
348 7 ibid., sub June 6, 1716. For Hamilton's 
defense of his proceedings in this cause see 
Hamilton, An Answer to an Anonymous Libel, 
Entitled, Articles Exhibited against hard Archibald 
Hamilton, Late Governor of Jamaica; 
with Sundry Depositions and Proofs Relating 
to the Same (1718), passim. 
349 7 Mins. Jamaica Council, sub June 6, 
1716. 
350 Ibid., sub June 21, 1716. 
351 From an examination of Hamilton it appears 
that "an appeal being presented by the 
claimants directed to the Governor and Council 
and no one precedent of the like nature having 
been offered or by inquiry found by Mr. 
Melling of council for the claimants the Board 
then were of opinion the appeal would not 
lye to them and if any lay in this island it was 
to his Lordship as Governor and that his Lordship 
did take upon him as such to appoint a 
Commission of Delegates for that end" (8 
ibid., sub September 7, 1716). In a memorandum 
by libellant Bendysh as to the expenses 
incurred in condemnation of the 
Kensington is found, "Paid Mr. Goodwyn a 
fee for twice attending a pretended Court of 
Delegates .£5/ 12 /6" (ibid., sub October 13, 
1716). 
352 10 ibid., sub March 16, 1726/7 (an 
August 8, 1726, letter from William Brown of 
Doctors Commons). 
353 CSP, Col., 1719-20, #34, 540. 
354 3 APC, Col., #292.