the appellate jurisdiction of the Governor and Council to appeals from "any 
of the courts of common law." 126 
The same question as to the inclusiveness of appeal instructions would seem 
to apply to appeals from the Governor acting as Ordinary. Yet in South Carolina 
in 1730 we find it assumed without question that appeals from the Ordinary 
were included within the ,£3OO minimum for appeals to the King in 
Council. 127 
CRIMINAL APPEALS 
In the field of criminal appeals there was no unforeseen development during 
the eighteenth century. The provision allowing appeals in cases of fines imposed 
for misdemeanors amounting to or exceeding or was extended 
to twenty colonies during the century. 128 The provision for giving 
security remained the same as in the earlier instructions in this field. It has 
been noticed previously that in some cases the instructions governing appeals 
to the Governor and Council in civil causes were purblindly interpreted to 
include criminal causes. 129 Conversely, in some cases the instruction governing 
conciliar appeals in misdemeanor cases was erroneously applied to writs 
of error in criminal matters to the Governor and Council. 130 
An episode in Jamaica reveals greater vigilance. On July 11, 1728, one 
Lancelot Tyler presented a petition to Governor Hunter in Council, setting 
forth his conviction in the Supreme Court of Judicature upon an indictment 
126 See 1 Labaree, Royal Instructions, #453- 
127 MS Observations on the Present State of 
the Courts of Judicature in His Majesty's 
Province of South Carolina (1730), 5 (L.C.). 
128 1 Labaree, Royal Instructions, The 
£200 minimum was established for the older 
and more important colonies at early dates, 
i.e., Barbados (1702), Jamaica (1689), Leeward 
Islands (1702), New Jersey (1702), and 
New York (1701). Dominica (1770), East 
Florida (1773), Georgia (1754), Grenada 
(1771), and St. Vincent (1776) were added 
later. Eight colonies had £100 minimums, 
ranging in date of establishment from Bermuda 
(1690) to Quebec (1768). Maryland 
enjoyed a minimum instruction for 
but a short time, 1714-15. 
129 See supra, n. 59. For the background of 
Wavell Smith v. Rex (Antigua) see 6 APC, 
Col., #443, 448, 450-51. In this case the governor 
was of the opinion that an earlier Order 
in Council dispensing with the instructional 
minimum in a similar case did not authorize 
a general dispensation of instructional limitations 
and so refused a writ of error (ibid., 
#448). 
130 In March, 1753, Benjamin King of Antigua 
in a petition to the Board of Trade related 
that he had been fined in the sum of £100, 
so that he could not be granted a writ of error 
which the governor by his instructions was 
forbidden to grant for a fine under 
(CO 152/27/AA 67). Earlier, in May, 1749, 
King had petitioned the Council Board for 
leave to bring a writ of error to the Governor 
and Council and if necessary to appeal thence 
to the King in Council from a July 12, 1748, 
sentence of the Court of King's Bench and 
Grand Sessions, imposing a fine for extortion 
while acting as commissary and judge of the 
Court of Vice-Admiralty (PC 2/101/244). 
The gravamen of the 1753 petition was that the 
governor and his circle had drawn up a number 
of depositions detrimental to petitioner's 
character and dispatched them to the Board 
of Trade, although the petition for a writ 
of error pending before the Council Board was 
a judicial proceeding in no wise concerning 
the governor. For these depositions see CO 
152/26/Z 72; for the record below. CO 152/ 
26/Z 35.