might be found an inadequate medium, and demand was made that it be supplemented by the original instruments in the cause. 133 The necessity of the record upon the conciliar hearing afforded opportunity for local recalcitrance by denial to appellant of copies of the proceedings. In Axtell v. Bonfils, a 1725 Jamaica appeal, upon allegation of such refusal the governor was ordered to transmit copies of all proceedings under seal in the usual manner. 134 In Francis v. Jeffries from Massachusetts the 1742 petition for leave to appeal attributed the delay of doleant largely to the subterfuges employed by several clerks of the Superior Court of Judicature to prevent appellant from obtain- Halstead v. Needham (PC 2/85/413); Eversden v. Douglass (PC 2/86/209, 216); Brown v. Bourke (PC 2/94/526). In Dickinson v. Doe ex dem. McFarlane the appellant from a November 27, 1752, judgment of the Jamaica Court of Errors complained that the transcript of the record was imperfectly transmitted, the officers responsible having failed to transcribe some parts of the record. Particularly omitted were the writ of possession which issued from the Supreme Court and a certain diagram which appeared to have been annexed to the interrogatories on which it was pretended one Joshua Crosby was examined. This diagram was produced and exhibited to Crosby at such pretended examination and was expressly referred to in his answer to the interrogatories. Without the diagram proper weight could not be given to what was mentioned in the examination. An order to the proper officer for copies under seal was prayed (PC 2/103/543). But at the hearings, resulting in affirmance, no mention was made thereof (PC 2/104/204, 207). In Carr v. Holmes, a 1718 Rhode Island appeal, the proper officer in the court appealed from was to certify to the Committee whether the case stated in the record produced under seal was the case agreed upon by the jury and whether there was any other evidence or proofs taken besides what was recited therein, or if the whole proceedings on both sides were fully stated and set forth therein (PC 2/86/194). In Walker v. Tucker, an appeal from a November 2, 1739, Virginia chancery decree, the outcome of the appeal depended upon the words of the will of one John Tucker, the testator. At the hearing the copies thereof materially varied from each other, and it was found necessary to have an exact copy of the will before the appeal could be determined. It was therefore ordered that the proper officer in Virginia transmit to the Committee under the province seal a true and exact copy of the February 12, 1731/2, will of the said John Tucker, and to carefully examine and compare the same with the original and particularly that clause relating to the bequest of the ready money and outstanding debts which was to be examined verbatim (PC 2/96/267, 467). In Harris v. Arnoll from Barbados an appeal was dismissed as "not being regularly transmitted" (PC 2/83/22). 133 At a 1755 hearing of an appeal by William Wells et ux. from a 1753 decree of Governor Thomas of the Leeward Islands as Ordinary, it appeared necessary to the Committee for a final determination of the appeal to have the original writings in the cause (wills of one Nicholas Taylor) before the Committee. It was therefore ordered that these original wills be transmitted to the Committee, but that exact copies be deposited in the local office in lieu of the originals (PC 2/104/426). At the adjourned hearing the Committee examined the transmitted originals and advised that Nicholas Taylor should be considered as having died intestate (PC 2/105/399). Cf. the Cases of the Appellant and of the Respondent in Wells v. Wilson (L.C., Law Div.). In Halstead v. Needham, an appeal from a July 18, 1715, Jamaica Court of Chancery decree, upon the hearing the appellants "failed in their proofs by not producing under seal of the island some deeds referred to," but were given further time to send to Jamaica for such proofs on payment of £6 costs (PC 2/85/ 350, 413). In Carter v. Sims (Barbados, 1769) a bond, the authenticity of which was questioned, was ordered by the court below to be sent to England under seal and delivered to the clerk of the Council. Case of Respondent (Add. MS, 36,220/187). 134 PC 2/89/92, 97.