representation was considered by the Committee, we do not know. 01 But the 
fact that "the Lords unanimously affirmed the judgment, rejected the appeal, 
and gave the respondent costs" in May, 1753, indicates acceptance of the 
General Court's views. 02 
Some years later, in Hearn v. Webb (Gapper and Young), a 1763 appeal 
from a Newfoundland Vice-Admiralty Court sentence, we find another instance 
of judicial accretion to the record proper. In this case under the Navigation 
Acts no appeal was taken from the July 28,1760, sentence within the usual 
fifteen-day period, allegedly because of ignorance of the proper steps for relief. 
When application was later made for a copy of the record, the judge subjoined 
to the record his opinion that an appeal ought not to lie, as at the condemnation 
no appeal was taken, nor within a year following. The judge also annexed 
additional certifications to the record allegedly not taken notice of in the sentence, 
including a relation of leave given claimant to appeal if he thought 
proper. 03 It seems probable that this record was procured prior to the conciliar 
application for leave to appeal, nevertheless, upon such hearing the appeal was 
admitted. 94 Upon the hearing in chief the appeal was dismissed and the sentence 
below affirmed. 05 
Inducted, there were very few ministers regularly 
inducted into any parish, but the constant 
usage and practice was that ministers coming 
into this colony produced to the Lt.-Governor 
testimonials of their having received ordination 
from some Bishop in England and subscribed 
to be conformable to the orders and 
constitutions of the Church of England and 
the laws there . established. Whereupon the 
Lt.-Governor and the commissioner of this 
colony usually recommended such ministers 
to the vacant parishes and if they were approved 
of by the vestrys of such parishes an 
entry was made in the vestry book that such 
person was received as minister of such parish 
and therefore the Act of Assembly made in 
the first y ear °f your Majesty's reign for 
settling a certain provision of salaries and 
glebes for the clergy of this colony appointed 
such provision for ministers then preferred 
to or who should thereafter be preferred to 
or received into any parish and made such 
ministers as we apprehend liable for dilapidations 
upon the glebes." It was further represented 
that agreeable to this law and usage 
Kay was duly qualified as minister, recommended, 
and received; that the determination 
in favor of Kay was agreeable to the 1727 
act which it was conceived waived the ne • 
cessity of induction and gave the received 
minister the right to glebes and salaries provided 
for them by the act. Record and representation 
under seal in Vulham Palace MSS, 
Va., Box 3, #53. 
91 Solicitor Sharpe informed the Bishop of 
London in a Dec. 14, 1752, letter that "if the 
same facts had been found by the jury in a 
special verdict and made part of the record 
as are stated in the representation made by 
the judges to his Majesty in Council and annexed 
to the record, I should have little doubt 
of supporting die affirmative side of the question 
and if the Lords of the Committee will 
allow us to read that representation I make 
no great question but we shall be able to 
support the sentence given in favour of Mr. 
Kay. But if the Lords should not permit us 
to read that representation (and which the 
other side will certainly oppose to the utmost) 
I am afraid we shall not be able to throw those 
lights upon the case arising from the particular 
local usage of that colony (and which usage 
is not at all stated in the record) as will be 
necessary to support Mr. Kay's right without 
induction" {Vulham Palace MSS, Va., Box 2, 
#129). 
92 Endorsed upon Case of Respondent, p. 5 
(L.C., Law Div.). Cf. PC 2/103/415, 422. 
93 Case of Appellant (Add. MS., 36,218/236; 
L.C., Law Div.). 
94 PC 2/108/590; PC 2/109/120, 169. 
95 PC 2/110/176, 193.