In a Minorca criminal appeal a rehearing was granted before an Order in 
Council issued when the Lieutenant-Governor of the island was not present 
at the original hearing; upon rehearing the original report was varied. 288 
Massachusetts attempted a rehearing in the appeal from the judgment of the 
boundary commission in the controversy with Rhode Island. The Committee, 
however, regarded this application as an endeavor to introduce a new method 
of proceeding at the Board; no precedents of rehearings could be produced, 
all former attempts having been constantly discountenanced as attended with 
dangerous consequences. 289 Despite this emphatic language, the opinion was 
still held in some quarters that a discretionary power of granting rehearings 
was inherent in the crown. 200 
THE AWARD OF COSTS 
It remains to discuss the question of the award of costs by the Committee. In 
English writ of error practice costs were awarded respondents in case of affirmance 
by virtue of 3 Henry VII, c. 10, and 8 and 9 William 111, c. 11. But in case 
of reversal no costs were awarded, on the ground that respondents should not 
be penalized for the errors of the court appealed from. 291 In most colonial 
and East Indian appeals heard by the Committee upon the merits no costs 
were awarded; 292 the majority of such awards as were made went to respondents 
in cases of affirmance. After 1720 more than two-thirds of the awards made 
ments below should be reversed and judgment 
given for appellants (PC 2/83/170). The 
Privy Council, upon considering this Committee 
report and respondent's petition praying 
rehearing before final judgment and alleging 
new matter, referred the petition to the 
Committee to consider and hear the parties 
concerned only upon the points raised therein 
(PC 2/83/184). The Committee advised that 
it had heard the parties and further considered 
their former report, but saw no reason to alter 
the opinion expressed in that report (PC 2/ 
83/191). The Order in Council thereupon embodied 
the earlier report (PC 2/83/195). 
288 In re Fonaris (PC 2/86/282, 294, 296). 
289 3 APC, Col, #323. Yet the Committee 
indicated the possibility of a rehearing in the 
case of new evidence laid before it. Cf. the 
mention of this attempt in Penn v. Lord Baltimore 
(1 Ves. Sen. 444, 455-56) where an 
exception appears to be understood in the 
case of "some very particular circumstances, 
as new discovery or fraud concealed." 
290 See 2 Hargrave, Jurisconsult Exercitations 
(1811), 394-95. But in the 1836 appeal of 
Rajundernarain Rae v. Bijai Govind Sing (1 
Moore P. C, 117) Lord Brougham stated that 
"it is unquestionably the strict rule, and ought 
to be distinctly understood as such, that no 
cause in this Court can be reheard, and that 
an order once made, that is, a report submitted 
to His Majesty and adopted, by being 
made an Order in Council, is final, and cannot 
be altered." But exception was made in 
the case of a mistake or defeated conciliar intent. 
These exceptions were carefully maintained 
in following cases; see The Singapore 
(4 Moore [n. s.] 271); Ex parte Kisto Nauth 
Roy (5 ibid., 373; 6 ibid., 360). Cf. Hebbert 
v. Purchas (7 ibid., 551). 
291 See Wyvil v. Stapleton (1 Strange 615). 
But cf. Gildart v. Gladstone (12 East 668) on 
the situation where the court proceeded after 
reversal to give such judgment as should have 
been given below. 
292 One expressed ground for nonallowance of 
costs was appellant's failure to prevail on all 
points of the appeal; see McCabe v. Charnoch 
(PC 2/97/356, 426). Failure to pray costs 
might preclude an award thereof; Bolts v. 
Erst India Company (PC 2/114/418).