nial and the English statutes, declaring that children by the half-blood should 
be let in following English practice. 166 Accordingly, both judgments were reversed, 
the respondents were ordered to make restitution, and the cross-appeal 
was dismissed. 167 
A problem of a different order was presented in Bedford v. ]ea\e, a 1765 
appeal from Jamaica, when the Committee had to decide between conflicting 
interpretations of several Jamaica acts for the more effective recovery of quitrents. 
In 1684 Sir Thomas Lynch died seised in fee of lands in St. Mary's 
parish in Jamaica, the lands descending to his daughter Philadelphia. In 1717 
this daughter contracted a second marriage with one Thomas King; by the 
marriage settlement the above lands were conveyed to trustees for the use 
of Thomas for life; remainder to Philadelphia for life; remainder to the 
issue of the marriage. This settlement was revoked in 1721; by a new settlement 
in the following year the lands were conveyed to trustees to the use of 
Thomas for life; remainder to Philadelphia for life; remainder to Thomas in 
fee simple. When Thomas died, in 1736, he devised the lands in fee simple to 
his widow. In November, 1754, Philadelphia and William Beckford entered 
into articles for sale of the lands, but before the purchase was completed 
Philadelphia died and the lands descended to her son and heir, Sir Lynch 
Salisbury Cotton (a child by her first marriage). In April, 1759, Cotton conveyed 
to Beckford all the lands of which Philadelphia had been seised in 
the island of Jamaica. 168 
Meanwhile in August, 1754, an information had been brought by the Attorney 
General in the Supreme Court of Jamaica at the procurement of Samuel 
Jeake for forfeiture of the lands in question under a 1733 act which supplemented 
earlier statutes of 1695 and 1703. By these acts forfeiture of the lands 
of absentee "owners and possessors" without effects in the island subject to 
distraint was provided upon information proceedings in case of nonpayment 
of quit-rents. Such judgment of forfeiture was to be a "perpetual bar against 
any former patent, grant, or claim whatsoever." 169 The information related 
that the lands in question were vested in the heirs or other representatives 
of Sir Thomas Lynch, that such heir or other representative was an absentee 
without effects subject to distraint, that no payment had been made of the 
quit-rents reserved to the crown on the lands, and prayed judgment of forfeiture. 
Following the proclamation of the lands at three courts, the Supreme 
Court gave judgment of forfeiture for the crown in February, 1755. Following 
106 Endorsed on Case of Appellant, Add. MS, 
36,218/249. 
168 Case of Appellant, Add. MS, 36,219/168- 
73- 
109 p or CO pi es 0 f the acts see the Appendix to 
the Case of Appellant, ibid., 174-75. 
16T PC 2/110/172, 192. Compare the opinion 
in 2 Va. Col. Dec, Barradall's Rep., 831-832.