the crown, making no reply to the prisoner's defense, and the Chief Justice directed the jury in a manner unfavorable to the prisoner. l9l The jury found the prisoner guilty, and reasons offered in support of a motion in arrest of judgment were found insufficient. 192 Sentence of death for high treason was therefore pronounced on March 16, 1701/2. 193 Bayard, in a March 17 petition to the council, arraigned the proceedings of the trial court and the provincial council and demanded an appeal as of right, but without avail. 194 Hutchins was then similarly tried and convicted, and was sentenced on April 6, 1702. 193 Hutchins, owning his offense, immediately petitioned for and was granted a reprieve; Bayard was more reluctant to make any confession, but finally, on April 12, a reprieve was granted him. 196 Even before the trials had concluded, measures for relief from the proceedings of the Leislerian faction were in motion, and on April 16 Henry Adderley and Charles Lodwick, London merchants, memorialized the Board of Trade on behalf of Bayard and Hutchins to halt the prosecutions. 197 Copies of the three addresses were demanded of the memorialists by the Board of Trade, but were not forthcoming. 198 The warrants for the commitment were sent to the Attorney General for his opinion whether they were legal and whether the crimes charged in either or both amounted to treason within the meaning or construction of the 1691 act. 199 Attorney General Northey was of the opinion that the warrants were sufficient in form to charge Bayard with high treason within the 1691 act and Hutchins with misdemeanor and that there was as much certainty therein of 191 14 Howell, State Trials, 503-4. Atwood allegedly declared that the facts laid in the indictment were undeniably proven and that such facts constituted high treason within the 1691 act. For other allegations as to the hostile conduct of the Chief Justice at the trial see CSP, Col., 1702, #1206 xi. 192 14 Howell, State Trials, 505 et seq. The grounds offered in arrest of judgment included: (1) no overt act alleged in the indictment was proved by the oaths and testimony of two lawful witnesses, as directed by 7 William 111, c. 3; (2) if the overt act were admitted as proven, neither by the laws of England nor by any reasonable construction of the 1691 act would any of the said overt acts constitute treason. See also the third reason offered in arrest of judgment which appears in the 1702 New York printed edition of the trial (Goebel and Naughton, op. cit., 274-75, 312) that the commission was limited to February 19. Further grounds were offered ore tenus: (1) two of the petty jury were aliens; (2) the venire in the precept to summon the petty jury was not awarded; (3) contrary to the laws of England, the precept was not returned by the sheriff, and not endorsed and signed by him. Compare the alleged answer thereto of Atwood (Case of William Atwood, Esq., 308-9). 193 MS Mins. N.Y. Sup. Ct. ]ud., 1701-4, sub Mar. 16, 1701/2. 194 8 MS Mins. N.Y. Council, Part I, 320. 195 MS Mins. N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jud., 1701-4, sub Mar. 27, 28, April 6, 1702; 14 Howell, State Trials, 516. 196 4 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 953; CSP, Col., 1702, #213. Cf. Case of William Atwood, Esq., 280-81. For copies of the Bayard reprieve see Bayard MSS; CO 5/1047/431. 197 CSP, Col., 1702, #343. The memorial was accompanied by twelve supporting papers, but some of these were not pertinent to the question controverted; see ibid., #357, 198 Ibid., #345, 352, 357. 189 /&'