is needed to the impression often given that Leighton v. Frost is sui generis. 
From these cases it can be generalized that the nature of the conciliar judgment 
and of the judicial personnel below constituted procedural factors. 
THE ANCILLARY BODIES 
Treatment of conciliar appellate procedure would remain incomplete without 
some discussion of the role of the Board of Trade and other ancillary 
bodies. Misunderstanding apparently exists in some quarters as to the function 
of the Board of Trade in the appellate process. 450 As we have noted above, the 
commission to this body granted no authority to hear appeals. 451 While it is 
true that a few references of appeals were ill-advisedly made to the Board of 
Trade in the transitional period of colonial administration, 452 the Board never 
heard an appeal in chief. In every instance that application was made to it to 
exercise judicial power, original or appellate jurisdiction was declined. 453 But 
1772) the Royal Court was accused of interdicting 
the Order in Council in the appeal 
of Nicholas Fiott (see p. 41). The Council 
Registers show only a dismissal of a doleance 
for leave to appeal from a sentence to make 
the amende honorable and to pay a 300 Vwres 
tournois fine for contempt of court (PC 2/ 
no/370, 376, 582; PC 2/111/287, 308). 
Cf. the Answer of the Royal Court of Jersey 
to the Doleance of Nicholas Fiott (1765, 
Priaulx Lib., St. Peter Port, Guernsey, C.1.) 
where it is stated that Fiott prayed an appeal 
even before sentence was given "nor could 
we, even if the appeal had been regularly 
prayed, have granted it in case of a contempt; 
for however his Majesty may grant appeals 
in all cases upon application to him, yet by 
the laws of this island we can grant no appeals 
in cases of misdemeanours; and were it 
otherwise, our jurisdiction would soon be at 
an end, and your Lordships would be daily 
troubled with delinquents of every denomination, 
seeking a remedy of the punishment due 
to their demerits." 
450 The statement by Dickerson (American 
Colonial Government, 1696-1765, 276—77) 
that "if the appeal turned upon a colonial law 
or the official action of an officer, it was regularly 
referred" to the Board of Trade for consideration 
is either erroneous or loose usage of 
"appeal." The characterization of the Board 
by Washburne (Imperial Control of the Administration 
of Justice, 70) as a constant factfinding 
body on appeals is lacking in validity. 
The statement of Clarke (The Board of Trade 
at Work,, 17 AHR 37) that the Board could 
give an appeal "a preliminary hearing when 
asked to do so by a reference from the King 
in Council" is misleading. Presumably reference 
to doleances is intended. 
451 See 4 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 145. Later 
commissions were in substantially the same 
terms. 
452 See Holder v. Coates (PC 2/76/532); 
Jones v. Fullerton (PC 2/76/520-21). 
453 Upon consideration of a South Carolina 
memorial relating to two sloops condemned by 
Governor Nicholson the Board of Trade acquainted 
memorialists that "as the said case 
had been determined in Carolina, their appeal 
from thence ought properly to have been laid 
before the King in Council, and that for that 
reason the Board could not take cognizance of 
it, without it should come referred to them" 
(JCTP, 1722/3-1728, 39-40). Upon consideration 
of some contempt proceedings in the 
South Carolina courts the attending solicitor 
"was acquainted that it being a law affair, 
their lordships thought they had no proper 
cognizance of it" (ibid., 1741/2-1749, 33). 
The Board declined giving assistance to Henry 
McCulloch, Surveyor General of North Carolina, 
in the matter of a private grievance, but 
advised application to the Council for relief 
(ibid., 150). In the matter of the Bosomworth 
claims to lands in Georgia the Board stated 
that it could not take jurisdiction therein, 
since it was a matter of property which must 
be determined in the colonial courts, with an 
appeal therefrom to the King in Council (ibid.,