execution and to request the Inferior Court of Common Pleas at York, in 
July, to permit withdrawal of the former plea and to allow petitioner to plead 
the general issue. It was thereupon prayed that the governor support the 
royal authority and cause the original order to be duly and punctually complied 
with. 375 The provincial council, upon consideration, advised that the 
aforesaid courts proceed without delay and do what appertained to law and 
justice. 376 On June 21 counsel Bollan submitted the second Order in Council 
to the Superior Court sitting at York and prayed execution against Frost. 
Counsel for respondent argued in opposition that the Superior Court possessed 
no power to issue execution upon the judgment of another court, that 
the charter limited appeals to the King in Council to matters in difference 
exceeding ,£3OO, and that no consent of the parties could confer jurisdiction 
contrary to the charter limitations. 377 On June 26 the court declared that it 
saw no reason to depart from its former pronouncement as to execution. Any 
review or action de novo by the constitution of the province would have to 
be initiated in the Inferior Court of Common Pleas and come before the 
Superior Court upon appeal. However, the Order in Council was delivered 
to Leighton for presentation in the Inferior Court. 378 
Apparently both Orders in Council remained disregarded, for in March, 
1742/3, David Dunbar, Surveyor General of the Royal Woods in North 
America, complained to the King in Council that nonperformance of these 
orders encouraged further litigation interfering with royal wood cutting. 379 
A conciliar letter was thereupon dispatched to Governor Shirley enjoining 
forthwith compliance with the orders in case of nonexecution. 880 
In October, 1743, the justices of the Superior Court were forwarded the 
two orders by Governor Shirley, with Leighton's complaint of failure to 
execute. The court thereupon ordered the clerk to prepare a draft of a summons 
or other process to notify Frost to show cause why the order had not 
been complied with and to lay it before the court. 381 Presumably the action 
taken thereon by the Superior Court was efficacious, for later in the year 
Shirley informed the Board of Trade that he had caused the conciliar orders 
to be carried into execution and the sums paid Frost by reason of the judgment 
to be restored to Leighton. 382 Little can be advanced to justify the 
375 41 MS Mass. Archives (Judicial, 1725-42), 
372-75- 
378 Davis, 3 Pub. Col. Soc. Mass., 259. 
377 Ibid., 259-62. 
378 Ibid., 263-64. Compare MS Mass. Sup. Ct. 
Jud. Minute ' Book (York.), 1736-47, June, 
1739, term, entries #2, 82. 
379 PC 2/97/351. Dunbar also memorialized 
the Board of Trade to have Shirley answer 
how the Order in Council in Leighton v. 
Frost could be enforced in England (CO 5/ 
883/EE 75). The Board of Trade decided to 
take Judge Auchmuty's opinion in the matter 
of the enforcement (CO 5/883/EE 78), but 
we have seen no evidence of such an opinion. 
380 PC 2/97/452. 
381 Suffolk County Court Files, #57,788. 
™*CO 5/884/FF 17; Shirley to the Lords