causes in the Admiralty Court of Carolina by juries, and a conciliar order was 
to be offered to show allowance of a previous appeal from the same court. 246 
Whether or not these witnesses were heard is not apparent from the Privy 
Council register entry, but judgment below was reversed. 247 
In the 1713 appeal of John Macarell from the condemnation of two ships 
in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas for illegal trading, it would appear 
that production of new evidence before the Council was contemplated; 
for allegedly the condemnation had been collusive, the master having neglected 
to defend the condemnations or to produce Queen Anne's or the King 
of Spain's pass. 248 But no hearing before the Committee appears in the Council 
register. 
THE RECORD PROBLEM IN CIVIL APPEALS 
If the Committee gave evidence of a relaxed attitude in respect of the original 
record in criminal causes and penal actions, the posture in civil cases was much 
stiff er. Even in the Channel Islands cases, which in an earlier era were handled 
with an indulgence far greater than any English court would have tolerated, 
there are signs of growing conservatism. Thus, in Gruchy v. de Qiiitteville, a 
1700 appeal from Guernsey, appellant privateer captain was allegedly reluctant 
to pay an injured sailor compensation under agreed articles. Among the papers 
of respondent counsel John Comyns it is noted that two witnesses might be 
called to testify to the fact of the wound and that the injured sailor, Samuel 
Lingley, might be called to show his wounds. Lingley could also make oath 
to some other facts in issue. 249 But the appeal was dismissed, and a test of the 
scope of an appellate hearing avoided. 250 In 1714, upon the "petition and appeale" 
of James Carey, the Committee denied opportunity to adduce proof 
of a debt at the appellate hearing. In this case petitioner, taken by surprise, had 
been unprepared with evidence below. 251 The furthest the Committee seems 
to have gone was in the 1724 appeal of Maret v. Lempriere, where an alleged 
denial of justice was in issue and the advocate of appellant was examined upon 
oath as. to an alleged denial by the Jersey Royal Court of liberty to summon 
and produce witnesses. 252 Yet in 1731 we find solicitor Ferdinand John Paris 
confined bidding, the captain of the ship, 
Butler, Walsh, Laughton, and Randolph were 
to be called {Rawlinson MS, A 270/46-47). 
246 Ibid. The record was that of the trial of 
the ship Turtle; the Order in Council was that 
of May 31, 1699, in Peers v. Amory; see PC 
2/77/345. 
Thomas Orby to Edward Southwell, Jan. 14, 
1713/4 (PC 1/58-B/B1). 
249 Rawlinson MS, A 270/40. 
250 PC 2/78/73. 
251 Carey v. Sherwood (PC 2/84/357; PC 
2/85/147). 
252 Maret v. Lempriere (PC 2/88/466). Cf. 3 
Les Manuscrits de Philippe le Geyt, 312-13. 
247 PC 2/78/236, 241. 
2i *PC 2/83/447; PC 2/84/251, 268, 293. Cf.