Committee would upon application of the opposing and conforming party 
proceed to hear the appeal without delay. 30 
Procedural variations appear in cases in which respondents failed to defend 
or appellants failed to prosecute their appeals. In the case of recalcitrance on 
the part of a respondent, the appeal might be peremptorily ordered heard on a 
specified date. 31 Reluctant respondents might also be summoned by affixation 
of summonses upon the Royal Exchange, Lloyd's Coffee House, and various 
plantation coffee houses in London. 32 Further recalcitrance would terminate 
in an ex parte hearing of the appeal, 33 but such hearing did not signify automatic 
reversal. 34 In the case of appellant's failure to prosecute an appeal within 
the allotted time, respondent could petition the Council Board for dismissal 
of the appeal for nonprosecution with costs. 35 Such application might be made 
with or without previous entry of the appeal at the Council Board. 36 Then 
30 5 APC, Col., #297. The days appointed 
were the day before the first seal (appointed 
by the Lord Chancellor) preceding every term, 
at ten o'clock in the morning and the day 
of the first seal at noon (seal days were motion 
days in the Court of Chancery). In case 
these days were insufficient for the dispatch 
of the causes, the Committee would sit occasionally 
upon the day of the second seal 
preceding Michaelmas, Hilary, and Easter 
terms. 
31 Knight v. Marshall (PC 2/84/304); Ford 
v. Hodgson (PC 2/86/189); Wharton v. 
Northrup (PC 2/91/257); Price v. Price (PC 
2/93/506). 
32 See Forward v. Poulson (PC 2/88/530); 
Franklyn v. Buraston (PC 2/89/306); Codrington 
v. Byam (PC 2/89/306); Toller v. 
Burke (PC 2/92/390); Smith v. Rex (PC 
2 /95/io); Jones v. Harrison (PC 2/95/56); 
Boutin v. Innes (PC 2/106/58); West v. 
Mannerown (PC 2/118/55). Plantation coffee 
houses included those of Jamaica, the Leeward 
Islands, Maryland, New York, New 
England, Pennsylvania, and East India. 
33 Proof of proper summons of respondent was 
a condition precedent to an ex parte hearing. 
See Walker v. Paget (PC 2/104/85-86); 
Mitchell v. Tasker (PC 2/116/329). 
34 In the 1738 St. Christopher appeal of Boyde 
v. Johnson, heard ex parte, the appeal was dismissed 
and judgment below affirmed. This 
case of ejectment involved the effect of changes 
in the sovereignty of the island. In 1690 the 
English conquered the French part of St. 
Christopher, appellant's title being derived 
from a 1696 royal grant of a portion of these 
lands. But in 1697, by the Treaty of Ryswick, 
the conquered portion was restored to the 
French and the English patentees were ousted. 
Later, by the Treaty of Utrecht, the entire 
island was ceded to England. The respondents 
claimed as tenants at the royal will (Case of 
Appellant; L.C., Law Div.). Endorsed by 
Sir George Lee on this case is the following: 
"This case was argued before a Committee of 
Council by Mr. Murray and me on behalf of 
the appellants, no counsel appearing for the 
respondents, and their Lordships were of 
opinion to dismiss the appeal and confirm the 
judgment in error given 21st February 1736 
because it did not appear by the special verdict 
that any claim had been made to the lands 
in question by Thauvett or any claiming under 
him since the Treaty of Utrecht and so the 
Statute of Limitations run against him, which 
as the Lords held took place in St. Christopher, 
it having passed in England before the colony 
was settled there, and secondly because it appeared 
that he was not in possession of the 
lands when he made his will and consequently 
could not devise any title in them to the appellant 
Boyd." For the conciliar course of the 
appeal see PC 2/94/308, 524, 558, 559, 592. 
35 For specimen petitions see Baylie v. Harvey 
(PC 1/51); Barton v. Bondinot (PC 1/58- 
B/B3); McSparran v. Mumford (PC 1/58). 
36 See Orgill v. Thomas (PC 2/100/345, 4°s> 
528, 540); Pusey v. Pusey (PC 2/102/286, 
291, 332, 352); Bayly v. Rodon (PC 2/105/ 
291, 571; PC 2/106/29, 40); Bradburne v. 
McAnuff (PC 2/108/443; PC 2/109/246, 
300, 324). Compare the allegation of respondent 
in Cross v. Atkins (Jamaica, 1763) that