JUDICIAL RULES 
The last source of appellate procedural regulation is found in the promulgation 
of rules by judicial bodies. The main source of such promulgation was 
the colony of Jamaica; this is probably explained by the absence of legislative 
regulation, as in the Leeward Islands, and by doubts as to the extension to the 
colony of the prototype acts of Parliament. The earliest judicial regulation we 
have found is a November 21,1710, order of the Court of Errors (the Governor 
and Council) that for the future in all cases of appeal before writs of error were 
granted, an affidavit should be made before the governor of the value of the 
premises that it might appear to be within the intent of the Queen's instructions 
and that security be also first given. After the return of the writ of error 
and the record certified, copies had to be given to the parties within six days, 
and fourteen days afterwards had to be allowed for assignment of errors or 
diminution, and fourteen days more for the defendants to plead. In cases of 
diminution alleged, fourteen days were to be allowed for the plaintiff to assign 
his errors upon the diminution. Furthermore, in all cases of appeal the clerk 
was to give notice to the judges of the Supreme Court and inform them that 
three of their number were required to be present at the hearing. 272 But failure 
to observe the rule as to assignment of errors caused dismissal of but few writs 
of error, 273 and the affidavit requirement to satisfy the instructions appears to 
have been evaded in some cases. 274 
On January 27, 1724/5, it was ordered that all appeals in cases of error from 
the Supreme Court of Judicature to the Court of Errors should be by petition 
of the appellant and that security should be given by appellant to answer such 
charges as should be awarded in case the first sentence was affirmed, as directed 
by the rules of the court, and that the register of the Chancery have notice 
thereof. 275 On August 20,1734, the Court of Errors ordered that upon all writs 
of error granted in futuro the register of the Court of Chancery should take 
security both for the debt, and costs of each particular cause. 276 On July 6, 
272 1 MS Jamaica Court of Errors Proceedings, 
53. Apparently these rules were the result of 
the proceedings in Brewster v. Hall. In this 
case appellant's counsel on return of the writ 
of error on Nov. 7, 1710, moved to be allowed 
time to assign errors. But respondent's counsel 
insisted that the premises in question were 
not of the value of £300 sterling as required 
by the royal instructions; the appellant not 
being prepared to give satisfaction therein, 
a fortnight was allowed to prove the value. 
On November 21 motion was made for leave 
to prove the value of the premises in question 
according to the former order, and one 
Nathaniel Hall made oath that he would give 
sterling and upwards for the premises 
in question. The value of the premises was 
thereupon admitted to be within the intent 
of the royal instructions {ibid.). 
273 See Reynolds v. Beckford {ibid., sub April 
7, 1725); Williams v. Harding {ibid., sub 
March 18, 1734/5). 
274 In Lynch v. Rex a writ of error on return 
was quashed, the unanimous opinion of the 
court being that the writ did not lie, the 
value appealed for not being within the meaning 
of the royal instructions {ibid., sub October 
24, 1733). 
275 Ibid., sub January 27, 1724/5. 
27e Ibid., sub August 20, 1734.