sumably appeal should have been made directly from the Vice-Admiralty 
Court to the Lords Commissioners for Prize Appeals. 
North Carolina usage of a Court of Delegates to review a vice-admiralty 
court sentence is found in 1712. On August 25 of that year one Samuel Mills 
of the Hannah and Mary petitioned the Chancery Court, comprised of the 
governor and three deputies, for a rehearing in the case of the aforesaid galley 
condemned in the Court of Vice-Admiralty. Petitioner alleged that the sentence 
was erroneous in that petitioner was denied counsel, that the vessel was libeled, 
tried, and condemned under the wrong name, and that the judgment in general 
was erroneous and contrary to the Act of Parliament upon which the libel 
was based. The Chancery Court ordered an injunction to issue to stay all 
further proceedings until a rehearing was had before such delegates as should 
be appointed for that purpose from the Chancery Court pursuant to the laws 
in that case made and provided. Mills was also ordered to provide security 
to prosecute the appeal with effect and to pay costs if cast. 365 On September 13 
new commissioners were appointed to hear the appeal, the old commission 
having lapsed by the death of Governor Hyde, 356 but we have no evidence 
that the appeal was ever heard. 
In New York further confusion as to the appellate power over vice-admiralty 
courts was engendered by the use of a common law prohibition to set aside 
an allegedly erroneous sentence in the Vice-Admiralty Court. This was not the 
usual instance of the issuance of a prohibition to prevent jurisdictional intrusion 
by an admiralty court. The basis of the prohibition was error committed 
by a court admittedly acting within its jurisdictional limits. In this case 
the ship Elizabeth and Catherine, captained by John Wake, was seized in July, 
1699, by Paroculus Parmyter, the local naval officer, for failure to possess a 
register under the statute 7 and 8 William 111, c. 22. 357 The ship, released upon 
a bond by Wake, conditioned to produce a register within nine months, 
made several further voyages. But in June, 1701, Thomas Weaver, a new collector, 
seized and informed against the same ship for the former importation 
of June, 1699. 358 However, Robert Walters, judge of the Vice-Admiralty Court, 
discharged the seizure. 359 Shortly thereafter Weaver, continuing his seizure, 
filed another information for the same violation—this time in the Supreme 
355 MS Proc. No. Car. Ct. Chan., and Wills, 
ij 12—53, 1 (vol. in rev.). 
366 Ibid., 2 (vol. in rev.). 
357 4 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 886, 930-31; 
CO 5/1047/591. 
358 4 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 886, 931; CO 
5/1047/591-92. Weaver and Wake were not 
on friendly terms (4 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 
817). 
359 From the minutes of the June 13 and 17 
proceedings it appears that Parmyter was sworn 
for defendant, and the £ 2,000 bond formerly 
given was produced; that one Isaac Jacobs testified 
that he had seen in the London Customs 
House the filed registry of the ship Elizabeth 
and Catherine {CO 5/1047/591). According to 
William Atwood the ground of the discharge 
was the supposition of Walters that the naval