until January, 1707/8, that the act received confirmation by the Queen in 
Council. 227 
THE PRACTICE IN MISDEMEANOR CASES 
proposed to the Council Board either that later act was not passed pursuant to conciliar 
Bayard and Hutchins be required to enter into order, no indemnity clause being contained 
recognizances upon record for themselves and therein, the earlier act was recommended as 
for each other in the penalty of .£5,000 that most proper for confirmation {ibid., #1103). 
neither of them would bring actions in the Accordingly, the Board of Trade recommended 
matter or that a new act be passed with proper the earlier act (ibid., #1175). 
indemnification clauses (CSP, Col., 1704-5, 227 Ibid., #1264-65. 
#736). This was accordingly ordered by the 22s PC 2/81/5. Apparently no appeal was de- 
Council Board (2 APC, Col., p. 414; CSP, manded below, but the governor was never- 
Col., 1704-05, #979). Bayard and Hutchins theless aware of his instructions as to appeals 
elected to proceed by a new act, which was in fine cases (CSP, Col., 1704-5, #1196). 
passed and transmitted for confirmation (1 For the proceedings at the June 4-15, 1705, 
Col. Laws N.Y., 590; CSP, Col., 1704-5, Court of Oyer and Terminer see ibid., #1251 
#1462, 1499). This act, which also lacked an i. Compare the irregularities as recited by 
indemnification clause, was referred to the Lillington in his petition of complaint (ibid., 
Attorney General (ibid., #1506). Cf. Lodwick #1368 i; PC 1/46). Many of these irregularito 
Bayard, April 16, 1706, Bayard MSS. While ties would not appear on the face of the 
pending there, certificates arrived that Bayard record in writ of error procedure. 
and Hutchins had entered into recognizances 229 PC 2/81/8. The Board of Trade repreas 
previously alternatively ordered (CSP, Col., sentation had proposed that three justices of 
1706-8, #972, 987). The Attorney General the peace be directed to take any depositions 
was then of the opinion that the recognizances made to them upon the grievances of the petifully 
answered the intent of the conciliar order doner (CSP, Col., 1704-5, #1387 i). Lillingand 
that confirmation of either act would ton complained to the Board of Trade that 
effectuate the royal intent. However, since the by reason of several defects, erroneous recitals,