mum. 165 An additional act of 1750 provided that no appeals to the Privy 
Council should be granted defendants in suits upon bonds conditioned for 
the payment of the money only, the last judgment of the Superior Court of 
Judicature being final. It was further provided that in all appeals if appellant 
failed to obtain a reversal or to prosecute his appeal respondent might by an 
action on the case recover reasonable costs and damages. 168 To prevent misconstruction 
of this act, the Assembly, in December of the same year, resolved 
that the act was not intended to be retrospective and was not to take effect in 
any action in which the original writ bore date earlier than the act. 167 
The numerous reviews granted in Rhode Island itself were not to operate 
at the expense of the Privy Council's jurisdiction; for it was enacted that no 
judgment on review should preclude an appeal to the King in Council where 
otherwise permitted by the laws of the colony. 168 When the colony laws were 
revised in 1766, the appealable minimum from the Superior Court was altered 
to lawful money, with that court evaluator of the subject matter. Appellants 
were to give bond to the Superior Court or the clerk's office before the 
court rose, with good surety or sureties subject to judicial approval in the sum 
of lawful money for prosecuting their appeal with effect or, in default 
thereof, paying respondent all costs and damages sustained by the failure to 
prosecute. Respondents before obtaining copies of the case (viz., record) from 
the court clerk were to give bonds in the clerk's office in the sum of lawful 
money, with good surety or sureties, to pay all costs and charges sustained 
by appellant in case of reversal. The 1750 provision as to appeals in suits on 
bonds was repeated. Appeals were not to suspend execution, provided respondents 
should, at the taking out of execution, give bond into the office of the 
court with two good sureties to refund and restore whatever should be lawfully 
levied and taken in consequence of such execution. 169 
In 1769 it was enacted that whenever an appeal to the King in Council had 
been allowed and bond given to prosecute, no local review was to be granted. 
If a writ of review were taken out, the court to which it was brought was ex 
165 See Hazeltine, Ann. Rep. Amer. Hist. 
Assn., 1894, 330. 
168 Acts and Laws R.I. (1752), 81. 
167 5 Rec. Col. R. 1., 316. In December, 1750, 
a petition to the General Assembly had been 
presented by Benjamin Jackson, Gideon Cornell, 
and Samuel Borden alleging that said 
act "was not for the public good, but really 
to alter the laws of this colony then in force 
to prevent your memorialist from using (if 
they thought fit) the last law allowing appeals 
home to England in a certain action for 
a bond debt then and still depending in the 
law courts in this colony." Petitioners asked 
for a repeal of the act and that the case might 
not be determined by a retrospective law, but 
by laws in operation when the action was 
first commenced (MS Petitions to R.I. Gen. 
Assemb., 1748-50, #103). But cf. the alleged 
threat of respondent in McSparran v. Hazzard 
in re a ,£290 solicitor's bill {Fulham Palace 
MSS, N.Y., N.J., R. 1., and N.H. Box, #19). 
168 Acts and Laws R.I. (1745), 284; Acts and 
Laws R.I. (1767), 224; 5 Rec. Col. R. 1., 78. 
180 Acts and Laws R.I. (1767), 10-12. The 
revision was approved in December, 1766.