476 THE PRIVY COUNCIL AND ENGLISH LAW 
at least as of the time of James I, and the specific-reference doctrine was a useful 
argumentative weapon. The colonists, moreover, could not prudently press 
claims of general extension, since this would imperil the liberty of their own 
legislative authority. They were in the inevitable dilemma of the wretch who 
would have his cake and eat it too. How far the judges were infected with this 
attitude it is impossible to say. There are certain figures, such as Delancey of 
New York and Allen of Pennsylvania, whose connections with local politics 
were such as to suggest a certain occasional tenderness for contemporary prejudice. 
And where the Governor and Council was the final judicial resort, it is 
not unfair to infer the existence of a proper sensitivity, especially when a 
statute which did not obviously touch upon prerogative was in issue. 
The first colony which afforded the King in Council an opportunity to adjudicate 
upon the question of extension of acts of Parliament was Jamaica, 
and here the matter was a much controverted constitutional question. 30 In 
1706 one James Allison brought an action of trespass and ejectment in the Supreme 
Court of Judicature of this colony against Charles Long and his wife 
Jane, daughter of the late Sir William Beeston. Allison was lessee of the 
premises in question for a term of years, Anne Hopegood Beeston, widow of 
Sir William, being lessor (during the litigation she married Sir Charles Orby). 
The defendants having pleaded the general issue, 31 the jury, in a special verdict, 
found a 1699 will of Sir William which (excepting a bequest to 
his daughter Jane), devised and bequeathed the remainder of the estate, including 
the lands and messuages in question, to his wife Anne. It further 
found that the four subscribing witnesses had not signed the will in the presence 
of the testator and that the Statute of Frauds (29 Charles 11, c. 3) requiring 
such attestation and subscription in the presence of the testator was of force 
and received in the island of Jamaica. The court, in February, 1706/7, after 
mature consideration found defendants not guilty of the alleged trespass and 
ejectment. 32 A writ of error to the Court of Errors failed for lack of a quorum 
to hear the appeal; three councilors were statutorily disqualified as slave factors, 
and three, being judges below, were disabled by force of royal instructions. 
Upon petition by Orby and wife to be heard before the King in Council, the 
so See Whitson, The Constitutional Development 
of Jamaica (1929), cc. i, vii, for an account 
of the struggle. This omits treatment of 
the matter as a judicial question. The author 
also appears ignorant of the existence and 
significance of Calvin's Case in this connection; 
see ibid., 16, note 3. 
sl The record in Allison v. Long is set forth 
in 1 MS Jamaica Court of Errors Proceedings, 
14-20. 
32 The special verdict in support of the finding 
that 29 Charles 11, c. 3, was in force in Jamaica 
related An Act for Making Good and Valid 
die Last Will and Testament of Anthony Wood, 
Late of Port Royal, Gentleman, Deceased. This 
act made valid a will which was void under the 
Statute of Frauds, being signed by only two 
subscribing witnesses.