were in cases in which appeals were dismissed for nonprosecution at the application of respondents. Costs were invariably awarded in round sums, which obviously bore little relation to actual expenses incurred, 293 and without differentiation as to the nature of the appeal, i. e., common law, chancery, admiralty. The quantum of costs in some instances was clearly exemplary and was governed by the dilatory, frivolous, or recalcitrant attitude of appellant 2Si or by the nature of respondent's action below. 295 During the reign of Anne the uniform sum awarded was sterling. 290 From the accession of George I until about 1750, awards were interspersed with and_£2o awards. 297 As the menace of the unprosecuted appeal increased and the purchasing power of sterling declined, the quantum of costs greatly increased. Specific awards after the middle of the century ranged as high as ,£2OO, but awards of and were commonplace. 298 Complementary to costs on dismissal for nonprosecution were costs awarded upon withdrawal of an appeal. 299 Where appeals had been dismissed ex parte for nonprosecution, their reinstatement might be conditional upon payment of costs. 300 In one appeal reversal of the judgments appealed from and a trial de novo by consent of the parties was conditioned upon payment by appellant of all costs incurred 293 Conciliar practice was similar to that of the House of Lords as stated by Lord Mansfield in Bodily v. Bellamy (2 Burr. 1094, 1097). 294 See the eight appeals from Jan., 1745/6, Jamaica Court of Errors judgments, in which £ 80 costs were awarded in each appeal on dis- missal for nonprosecution in 1752 (PC 2/102/ 434-37, 474-80, 498-502). In Weatherby v. Rait, in which ,£lOO costs were awarded (PC 2/108/178), respondent alleged that the appeal was frivolous and made for delay, and that it merited exemplary costs (Case of Respondent, Add. MS, 36,218/88). 295 See the endorsement on the Case of Appellant in Davis v. Warner (L.C., Law Div.) where judgment was reversed, .£lOO costs awarded, and respondent recommended for removal from office. 296 See inter alia Starke v. Parker (PC 2/78/ 34); Selden v. Beverly (PC 2/80/3); Wright v. Ross (PC 2/80/387); Mason v. Brice (PC 2/81/83); Holt v. Burke (PC 2/81/83); Husbands v. Chamberlain (PC 2/84/50); Sutton v. Sutton (PC 2/83/386); Lyte v. Lyte (PC 2/83/376). 297 See inter alia Cook v. Hooper, .£lO (PC 2/85/335); Axtell v. Bonfils, £20 (PC 2/89/ 275); Morris v. Watkins, £10 (PC 2/92/ 320); Gutturez v. Forbes, £20 (PC 2/96/ 122). 298 Brenton v. Remington, /40 (PC 2/102/ 209); Dunbar v. Webb, £50 (PC 2/103/344); Degge v. Kay, £So (PC 2/103/422); Wetherby v. Rait, £100 (PC 2/108/178); Stone v. Maynard, (PC 2/109/201); De Lor v. East India Co., ,£2OO (PC 2/112/ H3)- 299 See Mills v. Ottley, £5 (PC 2/103/262); Styles v. Kirkbride, (PC 2/120/476); Rowe v. Harvey, £50 (PC 2/123/532). In Bannister v. Brown appellant prayed leave to withdraw the petition of appeal, but respondent prayed dismissal with costs; the appeal was dismissed with £20 costs (PC 2/113/249). But where appeals had not been entered at the Council Board, they might be withdrawn without payment of costs; see Perrin v. Blechynden (PC 2/108/427); Bradburne v. McAnuff (PC 2/109/324); Maynard v. Stone (PC 2/109/170). 300 Boutin v. Innes, £80 (PC 2/104/276); Mathison v. Taylor, £50 (PC 2/117/374, 394); Beck v. Halsey, £10 (PC 2/126/324, 348); Rennald v. Brooke, the payment of ,£lO costs here was merely to prevent the laying of the Committee report before the King in Council for dismissal for nonprosecution (PC 2/101/30).