Court. 360 Before this information could be heard, Weaver, after conference 
with William Atwood, the newly arrived Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, 
filed a suggestion before Atwood for a prohibition against the June, 1701, Vice- 
Admiralty Court sentence. 361 The device of a prohibition was employed because 
the discharging sentence of the Vice-Admiralty Court was a bar to further 
informations. 362 Sitting alone at a specially appointed August session of 
the Supreme Court, 363 Atwood granted a prohibition to himself as viceadmiralty 
judge annulling and voiding the former sentence. 364 Upon appeal to 
the Governor and Council, this judgment of Atwood's was confirmed on October 
16,1701, 365 apparently upon the basis of arguments advanced by Atwood 
himself before the appellate body. 366 During these proceedings Wake and the 
owners of the vessel made complaint to the Board of Trade, but without affecting 
the outcome of the unusual proceedings. 367 Although an appeal to the 
officer had authority to compound and that 
the bond given was a composition (4 Doc. 
Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 886). 
ssa CO 5/1047/592; 4 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. 
N.Y., 886. 
361 CO 5/1047/592; CSP, Col, 1701, #732. 
For the suggestion see ibid., $962 IV. 
362 The Case of William Atwood, Esq. (1703), 
NYHS Coll., Pub. Fund Ser. (1880) 239, 252. 
See also CSP, Col., iyoi, #738. 
363 To still complaints of Wake and to lessen 
the danger of the vessel's escape, this special 
session had been prayed for and granted by 
the Governor and Council (8 MS Mins. N.Y. 
Council, Part I, 267; CSP, Col., 1701, #738). 
As to £Ee authority to sit alone, see 4 Doc. Rel. 
Col. Hist. N.Y., 923. Compare CO 5/1047/ 
592, wherein it is said that two judges joined 
with Atwood refused to sit. 
364 On August 23, 1701, the suggestion was 
read and defendant demurred thereto; but 
before the same was filed it was agreed that 
the defendant take no advantage of the plaintiff's 
suggestion as to matter of form, but only 
as to matter of substance, whereupon plaintiff 
joined in demurrer, and the prohibition was 
granted quo ad the bond and all matters relating 
thereto. On August 27 a consultation 
was denied, and the prohibition was ordered 
to stand. Defendant prayed leave to appeal to 
the Governor and Council, which was granted 
(MS Mins. N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jud., 1701-4, sub 
August 23, 27; September 3, 1701). A retraxit 
was prayed and granted in the information 
previously filed by Weaver in the Supreme 
Court (ibid., sub August 27). Atwood wrote 
that the matter was solemnly argued by counsel 
on both sides and that he took due time to 
compare the authorities cited and to collect 
others which he produced at large (4 Doc. 
Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 923-24). 
365 For the proceedings see 8 MS Mins. N.Y. 
Council, Part I, 274, 275, 280-82. On appeal 
to the Governor and Council besides the assignment 
of general error it was specially assigned 
that the determination was coram non judice 
(4 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 924). 
366 fhe argument of Atwood for granting the 
prohibition fell under four heads: (1) The 
cognizance given the Admiralty of the original 
matter within port was wholly new and so 
far from excluding the Supreme Court that 
the act manifestly gave the Supreme Court 
concurrent jurisdiction, which distinguished it 
from cases wherein the Admiralty or spiritual 
court had cognizance of the incident as following 
the principal originally within its cognizance; 
(2) this according to several adjudged 
cases was collateral and not an incident; (3) 
no rule in civil or marine law could justify the 
discharge of a forfeiture actually incurred 
upon a pretended composition for future payment, 
and that with one who had no authority 
to compound, besides it appeared to be no 
composition; (4) if there were any particular 
rule in the civil or marine law which would 
reach this case, it was directly contrary to 
the common law which should prevail in all 
cases wherein the laws differed in matters of 
substance (ibid.). Cf. The Case of William 
Atwood, Esq., 253. 
367 It was alleged that the seizure had been 
compounded with the naval officer by giving 
bond that the certificate should be produced 
in the province within nine months, that this 
was performed and the bond voided; that the