allowance of appeals to the King in Council from the Governor and Council 
sitting as the Court of Errors, it was in some cases ordered that security be given 
in accordance "with the act of Parliament" or in accordance with both that act 
and the royal instructions. 155 Similar orders were made in the case of writ 
of error proceedings from the Supreme Court of Judicature to the Court of 
Errors. 156 The statutory source is not definitely stated in the records, but presumably 
the act of Parliament referred to was 3 James I, c. 8. This act provided 
that in certain cases no execution should be stayed by any writ of error unless 
appellant with two sufficient sureties entered into recognizance in double the 
judgment sum to prosecute the writ with effect and to satisfy all debts, damages, 
and costs in case of affirmance. Apparently no notice was taken by the 
colonists that the act included only causes in the courts of record at Westminster, 
or in the counties palatine, or in the courts of Great Sessions of Wales. 
Whether or not this act and two of a similar nature (13 Charles 11, St. 11, c. 2, 
and 16 and 17 Charles 11, c. 8) extended to Jamaica was a perplexing subject, 
and eventually, in 1776, a local act was passed to resolve the doubts. 157 
Evidence of a similar extension of acts of Parliament in other colonies is 
meager. In an April 25, 1765, opinion of Attorney General John Rutledge of 
South Carolina on the method of proceeding in appeals from the lower courts 
to the Governor and Council, we find further mention of acts of Parliament 
regulating colonial appeals; for this opinion stated that appellant must give 
security to the effect required by the governor's instructions and by the statutes 
of 3 James I, c. 8, and 16 and 17 Charles 11, c. 8, which were in force in 
155 In Orby v. Long (January 25, 1709/10) 
appellant, in praying an appeal to the Queen 
in Council, declared that he would give such 
security according to the act of Parliament 
and the royal instructions as the court should 
think fit. The court ordered appellant to give 
security in penalty of ;£ 1,000 "to prosecute 
the appeal with effect according to the statute" 
(1 MS Jamaica Court of Errors Proceedings, 
20). In Brown v. Rex appellant also prayed 
liberty to appeal to the Privy Council, expressing 
willingness to give security according to 
the act of Parliament and the royal instructions. 
The appeal was allowed on giving 
£ 1,000 security to prosecute with effect according 
to the statute, (ibid., sub Oct. 27, 
1725). In Russell v. Pusey an appeal was allowed 
on giving security according to the 
act of Parliament and the royal instructions 
(ibid., sub November 16, 1732); in Price v. 
Price, on giving ,£lO,OOO security to prosecute 
with effect according to the statute (ibid., 
sub August 22, 1734). 
156 At the October 4, 1709, Court of Errors 
hearing of the writ of error from the Supreme 
Court of Judicature in Orby v. Long, counsel 
for respondent demanded "whether the plaintiffs 
had given security according to the act 
of Parliament and Her Majesty's instructions 
in such cases and the instructions being read 
and it appearing noe such security had been 
given it was insisted upon that the said writt 
was irregular and moved that the same might 
be quashed and that the plaintiffs might pay 
costs before they obtained a new writ." The 
writ was accordingly quashed (ibid., 12-13). 
157 See An Act to avoid Unnecessary Delay.' 
of Execution, Acts of Assembly of Jamaica 
(1786), 115. Under orthodox legal theory the 
two latter acts would not be considered in 
force in Jamaica, since they were passed after 
the conquest of the island and contained no 
clause of extension to the plantations. See 
infra, p. 465 et seq. But Jamaica paid little heed 
to orthodox theories concerning the extension 
of acts of Parliament to the plantations. See 
infra, p. 476 et seq.