unanimously declared that the power of attorney gave no such authority; that even if it did, his prayer could not be complied with because no proper writ had been brought to authorize sending up the record; and finally, that the court knew of no power to assign counsel to transact business in a court where it had no jurisdiction. 266 In the next month, on November 12, the Chief Justice returned to the provincial council the instrument issued by Colden on October 15. It was endorsed to the effect that upon consideration the justices had found it impossible, as the law knew of no appeal from a verdict, to comply with the command, for the reasons previously given in the cause; but if the record alone was desired, it would be returned when a writ of error was sent them. 267 Apparently Cunningham made no further efforts, since Governor Moore stated the cause to be entirely finished before his arrival in the third week of November and the money paid. 268 On December 15 the assembly, upon a report of the Committee for Courts of Justice, came to several resolutions as to the attempt made to introduce appeals from the verdict of a jury. Maintaining that trial by jury was the right of the subject by law and essential to his safety, the assembly resolved that an appeal from the verdict of a jury was subversive of that right and that the crown could not legally constitute a court to take cognizance of any such appeal. It was then resolved that the late attempt to introduce such appeal was "illegal, an attack upon the right of the subject, and a most dangerous and mischievous innovation, tending to encourage litigiousness and delay, promote perjury, prevent justice, subject the people to arbitrary power, and ruin the colony." Further resolutions condemned Colden for his part in the attempt and lauded the Supreme Court justices, the council, counsel for Cunningham, and William Smith, Jr., for their part therein. Finally, it was declared the assembly's duty to represent to home authorities the illegality and dangerous tendency of the late innovation and to solicit that appeals in error might take a course for the future consistent with the ancient right of the House of Peers to correct all the subordinate courts of common law. 269 Colden characterized these resolves as dictatorially made without any judicial authority or time for deliberation on facts unfairly and falsely preambled. 270 By February 22, 1766, copies of the Board of Trade's representation and the crown law officers' opinion on the 32d instruction were received in the colony by Governor Moore. Satisfaction was general on hearing the determination 286 MS Mins. N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jud. (Rough), 1764-67, sub Oct. 22, 1765; 2 Journals General Assembly N.Y., 805. 267 29 MS Mins. N.Y. Council, 101; 2 Journals General Assembly N.Y., 805. 268 7 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 814. 269 2 Journals General Assembly N.Y., 805-6. 270 7 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.Y., 803; cf. 2 Colden Letter Boo\s, 89-90, 453-57.