in New Hampshire appeals from the Superior Court of Judicature were made directly to the King in Council, 81 as well as via the intermediate tribunal of the Governor and Council. 62 The former method probably originated in a 1699 provincial act, the disallowance of which was disregarded in the province 83 The direct appeal from the Superior Court was more frequently utilized, but a trend toward the more orthodox appellate method is discernible in the later period. 84 In one cause the parties appealed to different bodies, 65 but an appeal was also taken from the subsequent Governor and Council judgment. 66 However, if the intermediate tribunal wrongfully refused to receive an appeal, it was possible to appeal directly to the King in Council. 67 of the province (Charter and Laws Prov. Pa., 323). In the noncolonial field the same general rule of the Council Board was applicable, but in Mackie v. Maugier from Guernsey appellant was allowed an appeal to the King in Council from the Court of Judgments without taking the usual intermediate appeal to the plenary Royal Court (PC 2/85/221). 61 Allen v. Waldron (PC 2/78/174, 191); Merrill v. Proprietors of Bow (PC 2/104/86, 101-2); Trecothick v. Wentworth (PC 2/106/ 243); Dering v. Packer (PC 2/107/189); Rolfe v. Proprietors of Bow (PC 2/109/74). 62 French v. Follansby (PC 2/102/28); Hilton v. Fowler (PC 2/111/261); James v. Meserve (PC 2/117/236). 83 See supra, pp. 175-76. 64 See supra, n. 62. In the judgment books of the Superior Court of Judicature only one appeal is found admitted to the King in Council from 1750 to 1774. This instance was Wentworth v. Atkinson, March, 1772 (MS N.H. Sup. Ct. Jud. Judg. Book, '77'~74, 248-5 1 )- Respondent was also granted an appeal to the Governor and Council. Appeals were denied in Merrill v. Proprietors of Bow (ibid., 1760-63, 59); Hall v. Sanborn (ibid., '767-70, 18-19). The Governor and Council granted appeals in Proprietors of Durham v. Gillman (MS N.H. Court of Appeals and Supreme Probate Rec., 1742-74, 42); Wheelright v. Sanders (ibid., 115); Proprietors of Londonderry v. Flint (ibid., 118); Branfill v. Inhabitants of Portsmouth (ibid., 125); Pearson v. Willson (ibid., 129); Moffatt v. Livius (ibid., 188); Atkinson v. Wentworth (ibid., 215-16). 65 Wentworth v. Atkinson (March, 1772). No opposition was made by appellant (to the King in Council) to respondent's motion for leave to appeal to the Governor and Council (MS N.H. Sup. Ct. Jud. Judg. Book, i77'~74, 251). 66 Atkinson v. Wentworth (MS N.H. Court of Appeals and Supreme Probate Rec, 1742-74, 215-16). 67 In July, 1722, the Bishop of Sodor and Man and two insular vicars general complained to the King in Council of several fines inflicted upon petitioners by the temporal authorities of the Isle of Man for refusal to retract several ecclesiastical censures (PC 2/88/67). But upon hearing before the Council Board a year later, counsel for the temporal authorities objected to going into the merits, since the appeal was not regularly before the Board. See Add. MS 36,216/10-12. Whereupon, the petition was dismissed because the appeal ought to have been made in the first instance to the Earl of Derby, the proprietor of Man (PC 2/88/ 282). When petitioners then attempted to follow the Council's directions, the Earl refused to receive petitioners, and the island officials refused the appeal on the grounds of the form of security offered, of submission to the sentence, and of failure to take the appeal within the customary month. To these objections the petitioners answered that no submission to the sentence had been made and that no time limitation for taking appeals existed (PC 2/ 88/392, 511). The entire matter was then referred to the crown law officers, who made their report in May, 1724, after hearing both parties. After summarizing the contentions and evidence of both sides, the referees were of the opinion that the petitioners were not precluded from appealing by any lapse of time, since there was no time limit. Even if there were such limit, "yet it appears in this case that a petition of appeale was presented by the petitioners to your Majesty in Council within that time, which being an appeal to