during Macnemara's absence from the province. l3s The Committee, upon 
considering the case of the petitioner, discovered that a jury had found Macnemara 
guilty, not of murder, but of homicide by chance medley and that 
petitioner had been denied a pardon, forced to pray his clergy, and afterwards 
by judgment burnt in the hand and discharged from his status of attorney. 
Thereupon, the Committee advised that petitioner ought to have been discharged, 
not burnt in the hand or removed from his status as attorney. Further, 
that it was proper for the King to grant petitioner leave by writ of error to 
remove the proceedings on the indictment and to command the Maryland 
court to restore forthwith to petitioner liberty to practice as an attorney. 136 
A September Order in Council followed this recommendation, adding that 
the court below transmit the record and process of the indictment together 
with all the proceedings concerning the same to the King in Council. 137 But 
in the interval the Provincial Court sentence was reversed upon writ of error 
to the Court of Appeals; consequently there was no occasion for further conciliar 
intervention. 138 
A long period elapsed before any further felony causes came before the 
Council. In May, 1771, one Michael Brislane petitioned to be heard on an appeal 
from a July 17, 1770, judgment of the Montserrat Court of Errors, affirming 
an April 24, 1770, death sentence for murder rendered by the local Court 
of King's Bench. 139 The Committee, upon consideration of the petition and 
hearing appellant's solicitor, advised that the appeal should be dismissed as 
inadmissible, and it was so ordered. 140 However, the Committee forwarded a 
memorandum to be laid before Lord Dartmouth for some directions to be 
transmitted to the Leeward Islands governor. The communication was to the 
effect that the Council were of the opinion that the special verdict ought not 
to have been received by the judges below, since it did not find facts, but only 
evidence thereof. Though the evidence seemed sufficient to have warranted 
the special verdict, yet the court was not to judge of the relevancy of evidence 
and to try facts, but only to declare the law upon such facts as were found by 
the jury and to give judgment accordingly. Since the verdict was a mere 
nullity, no judgment ought to have been given against petitioner, and it would 
be proper for the governor to grant a reprieve in order for the crown law 
officers and petitioner, respectively, to take such measures as they thought fit. 141 
135 p roc , Md. Ct. Appeals, 7695-7729, 137-38. when an appeal to the King in Council had 
136 PC 2/83/288. been prayed by the prisoner, he hesitated to 
137 PC 2/83/295. affix the colony seal on the proceedings for 
138 g ee p roc _ Md. Ct. Appeals, 1695-1729, use on appeal. But he acceded when the At-156-64. 
torney General rendered his opinion in favor 
i-zopc 2/115/175. of the appeal (CO 152/31/EE 38). 
140 PC 2/115/119, 187. Lieutenant-Governor 141 PC 2/115/120, .191. The special verdict 
Losack informed the Earl of Hillsborough that is set out in 5 APC, Col., #181.