Council. 24 In an intervening conciliar petition of the Commissioners for Victualling 
the Navy, it was apprehended that the judgments being founded on 
general verdicts without the evidence being returned, the respondents would 
insist that appellants could have no relief upon appeal. 25 This apprehension 
was justified, for respondents asserted that since the verdicts were general they 
could not be set aside on an appeal. 26 Nevertheless, the Committee, in December, 
1748, reported that although "there did not appear sufficient upon the face 
of the record for this Committee to give any judgment upon the merits of 
the case," yet it was advised that the two judgments below be set aside and 
that the Supreme Court of Judicature, upon application by either party, order 
a venire de novo to be issued in the cause. If either party should proceed again 
to trial in the cause, the court, at the request of either party, should "direct the 
matters to be found specially at such tryal in order that the meritts of the case 
may come properly in judgment before a Court of Errors in case either party 
shall be advised to bring a writt of error thereon." And it was so ordered. 27 
But five years later the new trials ordered had not taken place, and the owners 
appeared to have given up all pretense. 28 
A similar outcome is found in the first appeal attempted in Perrin v. Bla\e. 
The record being conceived too imperfect for want of a special verdict for 
conciliar judgment, judgment was reversed, and a special verdict on any new 
ejectment action was recommended. 28 In Lidderdale v. Chiswell, upon doleance 
leave to appeal from a 1754 judgment of the Virginia General Court was 
granted. 30 It was further ordered that the court below receive and sign appellants' 
bill of exceptions to the evidence of Chiswell and that such acceptance 
and bill of exceptions be returned duly authenticated under the colony seal. 31 
The bill of exceptions, received and signed, was accordingly returned under 
21 Bradley v. Bontein, Bennett v. Bontein 
(Case of Respondent, 1 Lee Prize Appeals 
Cases [NYPL], 27-32; 3 APC, Col., #566- 
67) 
25 Case of the Commissioners for Victualling 
his Majesty's Navy (1 Lee Prize Appeals Cases 
[NYPL], 25-26). 
26 Case of Respondent, p. 10 {ibid., 27-32;. 
- 7 PC 2/97/352; PC 2/100/456; PC 2/101/ 
125 13 8. Such a direction to find specially 
had' been suggested by the Commissioners for 
Victualling (Case of the Commissioners for 
Victualling his Majesty's Navy, 1 Lee Prize 
Appeals Cases [NYPL], 25-26). 
28 Bontein v. Trelawney (Case of Respondent, 
2 Lee Prize Appeals Cases [NYPL], 211-12), 
29 Case of Perrin and Blake Stated and Observed 
Upon, 3 Jurisconsult Exercitations 
(1813), 376-77; PC 2/103/218, 260. But cf. 
the allegation of respondent in the later appeal 
that the earlier "appeal had returned with 
it the evidence upon a bill of exceptions, and 
it was a matter of favour that the Order in 
Council of the 20th of December, 1752, on 
hearing, was not made so as to have been a 
perpetual bar to the appellants" (Case of 
Respondent, Add. MS, 36,219/240). 
30 PC 2/104/349, 439. 455- The court below 
had refused to grant the appeal, because a 
sum below the appealable minimum was involved, 
i.e., £223. The court also refused to 
authenticate a bill of exceptions, since nothing 
was to be gained thereby (Case of Appellant, 
Add. MS, 36,217/199). 
31 PC 2/104/439, 455- The Committee advised 
this order concerning exceptions so "that 
the merits thereof, should be heard at the 
same time with the said appeal."