1724/5, but adjourned subsequent hearing until the twenty-ninth. On that date 
it was objected by the council for the defendant in error that the Statute of Frauds 
was of force in their island and consequently the paper writing said to be the will 
of the said Edward Harris was not sufficient to pass his lands and tenements, but 
the council on the other side urged that the statute was not in force here, and 
had been adjudged so by her late Majesty in Council in the case of Orby and Long 
in relation to Sir William Beeston's will. And having fully heard what they had 
further to offer all persons were ordered to withdraw and the question was put 
whether the two judgments so given in the court below should stand confirmed or 
reversed, and there being an equally of voices it was ordered by the court that 
the said causes should be confirmed. 48 
No appeal was ever prosecuted in the cause. 49 
Before censuring the Jamaica Court of Errors for not following Orby v. 
Long, we must further pursue the problem of the effect of Orders in Council 
as precedents in the colony directly touched by a conciliar ruling. It should 
not be overlooked that Committee reports were not properly judgments, but 
as we have remarked, they were in the nature of advisory opinions tendered 
to the King in Council. A patent distinction between Committee reports and 
judicial decisions is the absence of dissenting reports in the former, presumably 
upon the basis that dissenting advice would merely confuse the sovereign. so 
A practical difficulty is found in the nature of the Committee report embodied 
in the Order in Council. As we have seen, most reports merely incorporated 
the petitionary allegations of the appellant and added the Committee advice 
on the appeal—the grounds of the advice usually did not appear on the face 
of the Committee report. Furthermore, Orders in Council enjoyed little notoriety—the 
Privy Council registers were not open to public inspection, 51 and 
48 1 ibid., sub January 27 and 29, 1724/5. The 
judgment might be justified by "long usage 
and general acquiescence" under a May 18, 
1724, opinion of the crown law officers; see 
1 Chalmers, Opinions, 220. 
49 Some confusion exists as to the appellate 
course of the cause. On May 13, 1727, petitions 
and appeals were presented to the Council in 
what appears to have been the same two causes, 
but the date of the Court of Errors judgment 
was given as Oct. 5, 1726 (PC 2/89/357). 
Neither was further prosecuted. On July 5 a 
petition and appeal was presented by Thomas 
Barrett in behalf of Peter Miller, minor, heir 
at law of the deceased Edward Harris, from a 
Jan. 29, 1724/5, judgment of the Court of 
Errors in favor of Barrow Harris. It was 
prayed that the appeal be received late, as delay 
was caused by the deadi of Barrow Harris 
and ignorance of the identity of his heir. It 
was also prayed that the widow and the eldest 
son of said Barrow Harris be summoned to appear 
and defend the appeal and that a short 
day be appointed for a hearing (PC 2/90/37). 
No further entry on the appeal is found. 
50 In the February 20, 1627/8, conciliar regulations 
it was laid down that "when the business 
is carried according to most voices, no publication 
is afterwards to be made how the particular 
voices and opinions went" (Selborne, 
Judicial Procedure in the Privy Council, 66; I 
Clarendon, State Papers, 36). 
51 2 Knapp, Appendix XII. For the neglect 
and inaccessability of the earlier conciliar 
records see Knox, Extra Official State Papers 
(1789), 15-16.