enforcement of the order appears in the minutes of the Lincoln-Cumberland 
sittings of the Superior Court. 400 
In adjoining New Hampshire, difficulty was encountered in enforcing a 
June 24,1755, Order in Council in Merrill v. Proprietors of Bow, a cause similar 
to Leighton v. Frost. The New Hampshire appeal, under the instructional 
minimum and admitted upon doleance, was of interest to more than the individual 
litigants and was unpopular with the local court. 401 The conciliar 
order was first presented for enforcement at the August, 1756, term of the 
Superior Court of Judicature, 402 but by continuances for advisement, because 
of illness of counsel, and for lack of a competent court, the order remained 
unexecuted until May, 1761. 403 At this term, appellant counsel moving for 
execution of the order, the Superior Court found the motion agreeable to the 
Order in Council and ordered that Merrill have a writ habere facias possessionem 
for the premises in controversy with costs, plus costs of the motion 
taxed at 8/6. 404 New Hampshire recalcitrance was confined to this 
cause; other contemporary Orders in Council were ordered executed as a 
matter of course. 405 
Although Rhode Island was a fruitful source of appeals, its attitude toward 
Orders in Council issued upon these appeals was scarcely reverential. In several 
causes, instead of automatically ordering an Order in Council into execution 
upon presentation, a scire facias issued to show cause why the conciliar 
order should not be put into execution. These issued from both the General 
Assembly 40e and the Superior Court of Judicature. 407 This practice was prob- 
400 See MS Mass. Sup. Ct. Jud. Minute Book. 
(Cumberland, Lincoln, York), 1770-72; ibid., 
1773—77. Gardiner, History of the Kennebec 
Purchase (2 Coll. Maine Hist. Soc, 269-94) 
makes no mention of this suit. 
401 For a discussion of the cause, see supra, 
p. 234. 
402 MS NM. Sup. Ct. Jud. Judgment Book, 
1755-59, 175 (continued to next term for 
advisement). 
403 Ibid., 217 (continuance for advisement); 
ibid., 248 (continuance for further advisement); 
ibid., 361 (continuance, attorney for 
petitioner Merrill being absent by illness); 
ibid., 383 (continuance for advisement); ibid., 
455 (continuance for want of a competent 
court); ibid., 518 (continuance for advisement); 
ibid., 1760-63, 38 (continued by order 
of court); ibid., 69 (continued by order of 
court). 
404 Ibid'., 172-73. 
405 See Dering v. Packer (ibid., 170-72); 
Trecothick v. Wentworth (ibid., 467-69); 
Rolfe v. Proprietors of Bow (ibid., 469-70). 
406 In Stewart v. Martin, respondent's August, 
J739, petition for a scire facias to show cause 
why the Order in Council should not be 
carried into execution was granted. MS R.I. 
Col. Rec. 1729-45, 361. But cf. Brown v. 
Allen and Chever (Oct., 1739) where no 
scire facias issued (ibid., 370). 
407 Freebody v. Cook, objections overruled, 
execution ordered (MS R.I. Sup. Ct. Jud. Judgment 
Book, 1 754~7 2 : T 5); Grant v. Dyre, default, 
execution ordered (ibid., 39); Creaugh 
v. Whitefield, no cause shown, execution ordered 
(ibid., 156); Laycock v. Solomon, default, 
execution ordered (ibid., 434). But cf. 
the following cases where no scire facias 
issued: Cooke v. Cooke (ibid., 206); Simon 
V. Wanton (ibid., 206); Sabeere v. Sabeere 
(ibid., 1725-41, 420-21); Torrey v. Mumford 
(ibid., 494).