On the same date, December 28, 1716, one Samuel Collins also petitioned 
for a prohibition against a Vice-Admiralty Court decree. Petitioner alleged that 
by power of attorney from Daniel Thurston he had appeared to two libels 
exhibited in that court in June by Ebenezer Brenton and Edward Little and 
secured an adjournment. In December the parties appeared, and the libellants 
were ordered to pay costs to appellee Thurston. However, the court later decreed 
that Collins refund _£ 10/4/2 costs to libellants despite Collins' discharge 
from acting as attorney at the earlier court. The prohibition was prayed against 
this second decree, and the Governor and Council took the same action as 
upon the Hodgson application. 376 But when the Assembly considered both 
petitions in May, 1717, the cases were held not properly cognizable before the 
Assembly and dismissed. 378 
In a late case from West Florida we find another instance in which a prohibition 
was used as an appellate device. Here an appeal to the King in Council 
had been taken by Samuel Thomas and Phillips Comyn from a June, 1772, 
Vice-Admiralty Court sentence, but it was dismissed for nonprosecution upon 
respondent's application. 377 In the following June appellants exhibited a suggestion 
for a prohibition before the General Court of Pleas on the ground that 
the Vice-Admiralty Court lacked jurisdiction under statutes 13 Richard 11, c. 5, 
15 Richard 11, c. 3, and 2 Henry IV, c. u. 378 The prohibition was accordingly 
granted, causing respondent John Campbell to complain to England. 379 However, 
Chief Justice Clifton justified his action by citation of English cases, 
holding that where a defect of jurisdiction appeared on the face of the libel, 
as in the instant case, a prohibition would issue after as well as before sentence 
380 It would seem, however, that effective use of the prohibition in lieu 
of an appeal would be limited to the situation in which execution had not been 
completed or award of costs remained unsatisfied. 
CONFLICTS OF JURISDICTION 
We have already seen the confusion between the Council Board and the Lords 
Commissioners for Prize Appeals engendered by statutory terminology. A 
375 Ibid., 107-9. When the Assembly failed to 
meet in February, 1716/7, new security was 
ordered taken" of Hodgson and Collins until 
the May meeting {ibid., 109). 
376 MS R.I. Col. Rec, 1715-29, 158. 
377 PC 2/117/266, 377, 396. 
378 Mississippi Provincial Archives, 6 English 
Dominion, 344-46 (Department of Archives 
and History, Jackson, Miss.). 
379 PC 2/118/318. 
380 Mississippi Provincial Archives, 6 English 
Dominion, 346-47. The authorities relied 
upon were Argyle v. Hunt (1 Strange, 187); 
Paxton v. Knight (3 Burrows, 314); Gardner 
v. Booth (2 Salkeld, 548); Coke, Second Institute, 
602, 618; Coke, Fourth Institute, 139. 
Although upon hearing Campbell's complaint 
in January, 1775, the Committee advised that 
the chief justice should order a consultation 
and that the governor should be directed to 
give proper orders for enforcing the Vice- 
Admiralty Court sentence, apparently no Order 
in Council ever issued upon this report; see 
PC 2/118/353, 374, 442.