tions of directive orders. 435 In Johnstown v. Burton from Bermuda a supplementary 
enforcing order was necessary. 436 In Maryland, appellant in Forward 
v. Poulson was forced to secure a further order directing restitution. 437 
As a result of the disobedience shown by the Antigua Chancery Court in 
Franklin v. Buraston, a letter of censure was dispatched in 1727 requiring 
instant obedience in juturo to all conciliar orders. 438 In a Virginia appeal the 
General Court refused to grant a writ of restitution unless appellant would 
enter into a rule for a new trial at the next court, necessitating application for 
an order for restitution forthwith. 439 From West Florida it was complained 
that a prohibition had been issued from the common law courts to stay execution 
of a 1773 Order in Council dismissing a Vice-Admiralty Court appeal for 
nonprosecution. A Committee report advised an order to the Chief Justice to 
issue a consultation, but the Order in Council thereon awaited further directions 
which never issued. 440 From Quebec also came complaint of refusal to 
obey an Order in Council, but the complaint lapsed upon reference. 441 
In most of these cases the basis of the recalcitrance is not apparent, but a 
Jamaica appeal affords insight into colonial climate of opinion. In Bayly v. 
Jackson an appeal was entered from a February 22, 1758, Jamaica chancery 
decree. Upon ex parte hearing, respondent failing to enter an appearance, it 
was ordered in April, 1762, that the decree appealed from be reversed and 
respondent's bill be dismissed. 442 Upon presentation of the Order in Council 
to respondent in Jamaica, appellant met with refusal to restore the 
paid out by appellant pursuant to the February 22,1758, decree. In the Jamaica 
Chancery Court on May 20, 1763, upon motion by Bayly, the decree was 
ordered reversed, but restitution was denied. The Chancellor stated that the 
Order in Council was silent as to restitution, that the appeal taken nineteen 
months after the decree was not within the instructional provisions, and that 
the conciliar order was not made upon the merits. Appeal from this chancery 
order was denied. 443 Then, upon doleance to the Privy Council the appeal was 
admitted in August, 1764. 444 
435 Wright v. Ross (PC 2/81/261, 284, 296); 
Gilligan v. Crow (PC 2/82/368); Gilligan 
v. Crow (PC 2/84/109, 236, 251, 267). In 
Grey v. Hathersall application was made in 
1743 that a 1726 Order in Council be directed 
to be recorded and carried forthwith 
into execution. But since it did not appear that 
the Barbados court had refused to record the 
order, the Committee did not think it necessary 
to give any directions therein (PC 2/ 
98/8, 33). In Saer v. Charnock, a 1752 appeal, 
it was claimed by appellant that an 
earlier July 10, 1739, conciliar order had been 
perverted and distorted (Case of Appellant; 
L.C., Law Div.). 
436 p C 2 /81/20, 31, 43. 
437 PC 2/88/481, 499, 509. Cf. Proc. Md. Ct. 
Appeals, 1695—1729, xlii-xliv. 
438 2 APC, Col., #1295. 
439 Corbin v. Corbin (PC 2/92/539; PC 2/ 
93/89, 100). 
44 ° PC 2/118/318, 353, 374, 442- 
441 Levy v. Burton, PC 2/118/228. 
ii2 PC 2/108/187; PC 2/109/173, 200. 
443 Case of Appellant (Add. MS, 36,219/154). 
444 PC 2/110/472, 586, 600.