seal. 53 Affidavits were submitted and witnesses examined in some cases to 
determine whether the amount involved exceeded the minimal requirement. 84 
In other cases doleances were referred back to the respective colonial governors 
to answer in writing before any decision was taken as to admission of an appeal 
55 In the opening years of the century the Council Board utilized directly 
the services of the Board of Trade to decide upon admission. 56 But the more 
mature procedure saw immediate reference to the Committee by the King in 
Council; 5T in 1717 Attorney General Northey termed improper such references 
to the Board of Trade. 58 
The grounds for conciliar application for leave to appeal included arbitrary 
denial of appeals below, 59 failure to meet the instructional or legislative minimums 
60 and inability to satisfy the conditions for appeal imposed below. 61 
In the petition of doleance it was necessary to specify whether an appeal as of 
right had been denied or whether "equitable" application was being made. 62 
53 Degge v. Kay (PC 2/102/241); Stanton v. 
Thompson (PC 2/105/34); Cockburn v. 
Beckford (PC 2/86/ m). 
54 Stanton v. Thompson (PC 2/105/34); 
Johnstone v. Houdin (PC 2/110/184). ln 
Lynch v. Mowat affidavits were produced to 
show that appellant, a stranger in Nova Scotia, 
could not obtain the requisite security locally 
to take an appeal (PC 2/124/542). 
55 Lason v. Sergeant; upon return of the 
answer cause was to be shown why the appeal 
should not be allowed (PC 2/81/111); Bevan 
v. Rex (PC 2/88/204). In Francia v. Hope 
the East India Company received a copy of 
the petition for leave to appeal (PC 2/95/664; 
PC 2/96/50, 69). 
56 See in this connection the use of the Board 
of Trade in the Connecticut appeals, supra, 
pp. 140-41, 144; in Brinley v. Dyer (supra, p. 
141); in the Cole and Bean cause (supra, 
p. 145). Cf. PC 2/80/388; PC 2/81/238. 
57 See Gilligan v. Crow (PC 2/82/305, 314, 
324); Arnoll v. Harris, Arnoll v. Regina (PC 
2/82/305, 314, 319); usually the appeal was 
admitted directly by conciliar order, but here 
the governor of Barbados was directed to admit 
the appeals; Chilton v. Regina (PC 2/81/27, 
30); Barrow v. Regina (PC 2/81/391, 404, 
410); Slingsby v. Regina (PC 2/82/507; PC 
2/83/23, 46). In Taylor v. Jones, upon petition 
for leave to appeal from a judgment of 
die Maryland Provincial Court, it was alleged 
that petitioner was not present below nor 
had any attorney there to pray an appeal (PC 
2/81/324). The Committee advised that the 
appeal be admitted despite the lapse of time 
in making the appeal, in case the Governor 
and Council had no other legal objection 
thereto (PC 2/81/350, 356). But the appeal 
never came before the Council. 
58 2 Chalmers, Opinions, 177. 
59 See supra, p. 140 et seq. 
60 In Worsham v. Applethwaite an appeal 
from a May, 1701, Barbados chancery decree 
was denied below on the ground that the 
original sum decreed did not amount to the 
appealable minimum of X5OO. Petitioner in 
his petition for leave to appeal alleged that 
the .£412 sued for with interest thereon 
amounted to more than the necessary minimum; 
the Committee advised allowance of 
the appeal (PC 2/80/93, 119). Cf. Hagget v. 
Alford, where a petition for allowance of an 
appeal from a March 20, 1708/9, chancery 
decree was ordered dismissed, since it appeared 
that no appeals were admitted from 
the island unless the value of the sum appealed 
for exceeded .£5OO, whereas only 
/[173 odd was involved here (PC 2/82/455, 
487, 490). See also the doleances from Rhode 
Island, supra, p. 248. 
61 See supra, p. 275. 
62 In Lason v. Sergeant petitioner complained 
of the denial of an appeal from a Nov. 7, 
1704, judgment of the Superior Court of 
Judicature of Massachusetts and prayed admission 
thereto (PC 2/81/69). Upon a hearing 
the Committee advised that the governor 
be ordered to transmit an account in writing 
of the reasons for refusing to admit the appeal 
and also copies of all the proceedings relating 
to the cause. All persons concerned