gotten by the inhabitants of New York; it was foremost among the articles 
exhibited against the Chief Justice by the people of New York upon the arrival 
of Governor Cornbury. 372 
A later instance of recourse to common law courts to review vice-admiralty 
court proceedings is found in Rhode Island in 1716. On December 28 of that 
year one Daniel Hodgson, master of the John of London, petitioned the Governor 
and Council for a prohibition staying proceedings on a decree obtained 
by one Peter Ford in the Vice-Admiralty Court. Petitioner alleged that a breach 
of a charter party had been caused by the unsafe condition of the said John of 
London, for which breach suits had been brought against petitioner in both 
the vice-admiralty and common law courts by Richard Mew, factor of Moses 
Austell of the charter party, that an action had been commenced against petitioner 
in the Vice-Admiralty Court by Peter Ford et al. as part owner of the ship 
for proceeds of the charter party as far as completed, that petitioner had pleaded 
that upon judgment for the proceeds plaintiffs Ford et al. be obligated to give 
security to indemnify petitioner against actions for charter party breach, but 
that the court, on December 17, had decreed payment of to Ford 
et al. with no provisions for security, contrary to law and equity. Thereupon, 
it was prayed that a prohibition issue to the Vice-Admiralty Court staying all 
proceedings on the decree until reasonable security was given to save petitioner 
harmless and to pay proportionate shares of any costs and damages accruing 
to petitioner on any future suits for breach of the charter party. 373 
The Governor and Council upon consideration of the petition were of the 
opinion that it was not within their authority to grant any final prohibition 
requiring Judge Menzies of the Vice-Admiralty Court to stay proceedings on 
his decree. The matter was regarded as "chiefly cognizable before the General 
Assembly who is the Supream Court of this colony and to whom all other inferior 
courts are obliged to answer for any maladministration or erroneous 
judgment." However, it was presumed that the Governor and Council possessed 
sufficient authority to prohibit execution until the next session of the 
Assembly. This prohibition was ordered to issue provided petitioner gave 
notice to Ford et al. to appear and answer before the Assembly and gave security 
to prosecute and to answer all costs and damages awarded. 374 
Elizabeth and Catherine, from which an appeal 
had been taken. This petition praying a 
speedy hearing and just relief was referred 
to the Committee in the usual manner (PC 
2/79/148). On April 10, 1703, a petition was 
presented by the widow of Wake for admission 
to appeal from an Admiralty Court sentence 
condemning said ship; this may have been a 
petition in the nature of a revival (PC 2/79/ 
352). 
372 CSP, Col., 1702, #1206 xi. 
373 iter. Vice-Adm. Ct. R. 1., 1716-52, 103-5. 
For a protest as to the condition of the John 
of London see 3 MS R.I. Land Rec, 1707-21, 
#111. 
27i Rec. Vice-Adm. Ct. R. 1., 1716-52, 105-7.