extension of the appeal privilege. 95 This application came from the inhabitants 
of Rumford, who, holding under a Massachusetts grant, came under the 
jurisdiction of New Hampshire in the settlement of the boundary between 
the provinces. The proprietors of Bow, claiming under a New Hampshire 
grant, were bringing ejectment to recover the lands. Since the Bow element 
controlled the courts and respected the appeal minimum, it had been necessary 
to petition the King in Council for leave to appeal in the case of Merrill v. 
Proprietors of Bow. 96 The application resulted in a 1755 instruction to the 
governor that appeals should be admitted to the King in Council in all cases 
where the matter in question related to the title of lands, messuages, or tenements, 
although the value thereof was under the required minimum, provided 
the right to other lands, tenements, and messuages exceeding the minimal 
amount depended thereon. 97 This relief, however, was alleged to be of doubtful 
value, since no provision was made for appeals under the minimum from 
the Superior Court to the Governor and Council. 98 
Quebec (1768), St. Vincent (1776), West 
Florida (1767) (1 Labaree, Royal Instructions, 
#453)- 
95 See the petition of Timothy Walker received 
by the Board o£ Trade on April 22, 
1754 (CO 5/926/B 53), and the report of the 
Attorney General and Solicitor General thereon 
(CO 5/926/B 67). 
96 For accounts of this litigation see Walker, 
The Controversy between the Proprietors of 
Bow and Those of Penny Coo\, 1727—8g, 3 
Proc. N.H. Hist. Soc. (1902), 261-92; Akagi, 
Town Proprietors of the New England Colonies 
(1924), 165-74; 1 Carter, History of 
Pembroke, N.H. (1895), 39-50; 1 History 
of Concord, New Hampshire (ed. Lyford, 
1903), c. vi; J. B. Moore, Annals of the 
Town of Concord (1824), 86-98. The Cases 
on appeal in Merrill v. Proprietors of Bow, 
are in L.C., Law Div. For the Cases on appeal 
in Rolfe v. The Proprietors of Bow, a later 
appeal in the same matter, see Add. MS, 
36,218/181-92. For the conciliar course of 
Merrill v. The Proprietors of Bow see PC 2/ 
104/86, 101-2, in, 315, 415, 419, 454. The 
Committee advised reversal of the judgment 
below in that "it did not appear, that the 
premises in question are comprized within 
the respondent's grant." For the later appeal 
see PC 2/109/74, 433, 441, 453. Endorsed 
upon appellant's conciliar case by Charles 
Yorke is the following: "Possession in America 
presuming improvement in favour of the 
defendant's, so as to support their right, 
against the original title; unless it is proved, 
that the grants have been deserted and lands 
uncultivated. N. 8., considerable evidence of 
improvement in this case" (Add. MS., 36,218/ 
184). The Penny Cook proprietors were subsidized 
in their appeals by Massachusetts (5 
MS Mass. Archives, [Colonial, 1728-74], 
171-74; 6 ibid., [Colonial, 1724-73], 135-36) 
and the proprietors of Bow by New Hampshire 
(6 Doc. and Rec. Rel. Prov. N.H., 253, 294). 
97 3 Laws of N.H., 632-33; 1 Labaree, Royal 
Instructions, #457. 
98 A petition from the inhabitants of Rumford 
complained "that they had been gready distressed 
by many lawsuits respecting the property 
of their lands of an inferior value in which 
all access to the throne is barred otherwise 
than by way of complaint. And although they 
obtained an express order to the Governor 
in cases which concern the rights of many, 
however small in themselves, that appeals 
should be allowed, from the Governor in 
Council to the King in Council, yet they have 
not been able to reap any benefit thereby, because 
the said instruction does not expressly 
say that appeals should also be allowed from 
the Superior Court to the Governor in Council" 
(Add. MS, 15, 489/1).