sultation with counsel, and argument of interlocutory motions. 315 Printer's 
costs could be a considerable item when a lengthy case was prepared or when 
it was necessary to print the record below, as in the boundary commission appeals 
318 Although it was not customary at the Cockpit to tax costs in the 
manner of the courts of Westminster Hall, the above counsel and solicitor's 
fees and other disbursements were in the nature of taxable costs and would 
have been taxable in the latter courts. 317 We have seen no indication that the 
expenses incurred upon doleance procedure preliminary to the appeal in chief 
were considered as a factor in awarding costs. In addition, if a party decided 
to come to London in person to prosecute or to defend an appeal, the additional 
expenses of transportation and London residence were incurred, 318 although 
not taxable in nature. The expense of procuring copies of the record for use 
on appeal, an expense mentioned by several litigants, would be nontaxable. 319 
Although appeals or defenses in forma pauperis were admitted in Channel 
Islands causes, 320 we have seen none for the colonies. 321 
These generalizations as to expenses upon appeal can be supplemented by 
the sum totals in specific cases. In the last appeal in the Mohegan Indians- 
Connecticut controversy the respondent colony was presented with a 
19/1 bill of costs, the respondent landholders with one of _£ 619/13/2. 322 A 
bill sent to Massachusetts in its appeal from the determination of the royal 
commission in the boundary dispute with New Hampshire amounted to 
315 Supra, p. 272 et seq. Cf. the Leeward Islands 
reference to the exorbitant accounts of 
eminent solicitor Ferdinand John Paris, supra, 
n. 312. 
316 The printing bill for the respondent landowners 
in Mohegan Indians v. Connecticut 
was £100/4 (MS Conn. Archives, 2 Indians, 
#278 j). 
317 See Palmer, The Attorney and Agent's 
New Table of Costs in the Courts of King's- 
Bench and Common-Pleas (1792), 216-22. 
318 See Plantation Justice (1701), 6, 11; TS 
(Samuel Mason's expenses as 
agent for the Mohegan Indians in the controversy 
with Connecticut; as to the uselessness 
of this attendance, see supra, p. 312). William 
Samuel Johnson was sent to England by Connecticut 
to manage for respondents in the last 
appeal in Mohegan Indians v. Connecticut; 
see the entries in his diaries in Conn. Hist. 
Soc. Henry Marchant also managed some 
Rhode Island appeals in England; see his 
diary, supra, n. 149. 
319 See Byam v. Gilbert (PC 1/46); Baylie v. 
Harvey (PC 1/51); McSparran v. Mumford 
(PC V5B-B/B3). 
320 For the former see Le Cerf v. Guille (PC 
2/105/257, 267); Valpy v. Messervy (PC 2/ 
108/336). For the latter, Poingdestre v. Le 
Breton and Rouet (PC 2/103/359); Poole v. 
Messan (PC 2/123/344, 350, 376). Apparently 
the condition for such appeal or defense was 
total wealth less than £5 sterling. See also 
the waiver of security upon appeal in Le 
Cerf v. Guille (PC 2/105/257, 267); Mackie 
v. Mauger (PC 2/85/221); de la Rue v. Morin 
(PC 2/86/189). In Le Riche v. Lempriere 
(PC 2/108/344), tne Committee even advised 
a direction to the Jersey Royal Court that 
Le Riche be allowed to prosecute his suit in 
forma pauperis. 
321 In Rennalls v. Tripier (Jamaica) respondent, 
petitioning for dismissal for nonprosecution, 
prayed admission in forma pauperis, as 
in the court below, and that Alexander Forrester 
be assigned as counsel and John Way 
as solicitor (PC 2/113/461). There is no evidence 
that this application was granted, but 
note that the crown financed the appeals of 
the Mohegan Indians in their prolonged 
boundary controversy with Connecticut (infra, 
pp. 436-37)- 
322 MS Conn. Archives, 2 Indians, $278, 279, 
printed infra as Appendix B.