eluded below would have to be made part of the record by a bill of exceptions. But in a Massachusetts appeal it was alleged that bills of exceptions were not admissible or at least had not been introduced into any of the courts of the province. l2o The significance of this omission in Massachusetts practice is obvious. The appeal record in spite of its dimensions, containing as it did the testimony actually admitted, was defective for review purposes, since the incidents most prejudicial to a litigant —his rejected proofs—were not included, and in the absence of exceptions there was no way the rulings could be adequately considered. Some debate on the question whether the Privy Council could enter into the merits of a New England appeal is found. This occurred in the 1754 Massachusetts appeal of Vassall v. Fletcher, the previously mentioned action for defamation in which one ground of error was the award of excessive damages 121 The appellant maintained before the Committee that the Lords had a right to go into the evidence and to reverse the Superior Court judgment. But respondent argued that the Lords could not go into the merits of the cause, but only into error appearing on the record. If encouragement were given to such appeals, the Committee would be greatly occupied "upon disputes and quarrels bred in these warm climates under your jurisdiction . . ." 122 Counsel was either unaware of the fact that a different type of record prevailed in the "warm climates," or he was lamentably misinformed regarding the nature of seasonal change in New England. Judgment below was reversed upon procedural grounds, 123 although Chief Justice Willes, George Dodington, and Sir George Lee favored entering into the merits of the cause. 124 We also find Richard Jackson, Connecticut agent, voicing his disapproval of trials which excluded juries and stating that he "often wished that the practice of bringing hither by appeal causes that have been tried by a jury in other parts of New England, whereby verdicts are often set aside, was altered." 125 It is apparent from the Council's handling of the New England cases, that, value of £300 sterling; that "in all cases upon either parties desiring, that the evidences may be taken in writing, in order to be produced upon the hearing of an appeal before His Majesty in Council; the court where any case is last tryed shall order the. same accordingly" (CO 5/886/GG 21, #10). 120 Jeffries v. Donnell, Case of Appellant, p. 7 (Col. Univ. Law Lib.). 121 For the conciliar "cases" see Add. MS 36,217/44-48; L.C., Law Div. See also supra, PP- 374-75- 122 Add. MS, 36,217/73, 80. 123 PC 2/104/25, 32. 124 Endorsed on Case of Respondent, p. 3 (L.C., Law Div.). 126 Pitkin Papers, 19 Conn. Hist. Soc. Coll., 69-70. Cf. the proposition of Jackson that in case the Mohegan Indians cause seemed likely to go against the colony, he would propose trial of every freeholder's rights by a jury drawn by the Privy Council, even one from an adjoining colony (ibid., 76).