In June, 1772, the Superior Court of Judicature judges were ordered to return 
in writing their answer to the complaint. 428 The three recalcitrant judges in 
the first place denied any intent to question the right of the King in Council 
to hear appeals. Then it was observed that from the local situation and from 
the necessary and unavoidable differences in the local modes of practice, laws, 
and customs (not at all times made known by the parties on appeal), some inconveniences 
had arisen as to the true understanding by the Council Board 
of colonial judgments and the manner of executing conciliar orders. Rhode 
Island judgments made upon certain judicial usages and customs and positive 
laws might from the partial statements and omissions of the parties to an appeal 
or counsel appear very exceptionable to the Council. Yet upon proper information 
of the laws, customs, and usages upon which such judgments were 
founded, they might deserve conciliar approbation. Although anxious to com- 
423 MS R.I. Sup. Ct. Jud. Judgment Book., the bench that they ought never to pay less 
H54-72, 428-31. 
i2i lbid., 445-46. 
425 6 APC, Col, #871; PC 1/55. 
426 MS R.I. Sup. Ct. Jud. Judgment Book, Privy Council, ed. I. Mauduit, 1859, 108). 
1754-72, 475-79; 6 APC, Col, #871; PC 427 PC 2/116/62. 
1/55. Earlier in 1767 it had been related that 428 PC 2/116/336-37. 
Helme had pleaded in vain with the rest of