hibitions were denied, the benefit of the common law would be denied to 
those lacking wealth sufficient to support an appeal to Great Britain. Even 
in such cases, however, the appeal would lie only to the High Court of Admiralty—an 
absurd remedy. On the other hand, in cases where a prohibition 
was wrongly issued, an adequate remedy was present in an appeal to the 
King in Council, from whom both jurisdictions flowed. 192 Jeremiah Dummer 
argued that the liberty of an appeal was no reason to deny prohibitory power, 
citing as precedent the English situation. He further agreed with West that 
appeal to the High Court of Admiralty was an illusory remedy, courts rarely 
displaying forwardness in limiting their own jurisdiction. 193 
In August, 1726, Attorney General Yorke informed the Commissioners of 
the Admiralty that to avoid prohibitions from common law courts immediate 
application ought to be made to such courts to grant consultations. If a consultation 
were refused, the prosecutor ought to appeal to the King in Council 
194 But little immediate use was made of this method of relief from prohibitions. 
In July, 1726, Collector of the Customs Robinson prayed for appeals 
from the issuance of prohibitions by the Superior Court of Judicature of Massachusetts 
in the case of vice-admiralty court proceedings against the Esther 
and the Mary Ann. 196 The basis of the prohibition issuance was the extension 
of 15 Richard 11, c. 3, to the province. l 96 However, these doleances were never 
acted upon. In September, 1728, a prohibition issued in Norton v. ]e\yll upon 
the same basis, but the Superior Court did not see sufficient cause to grant an 
appeal. 197 No conciliar doleance, however, was offered in this case. 
Later, in the province of New York an appeal was prosecuted from the issuance 
of a prohibition against vice-admiralty court proceedings in a seizure 
under the Navigation Acts, but upon appeal the common law jurisdiction was 
confirmed. In August, 1739, Archibald Kennedy, Collector of the Customs at 
New York, seized the sloop Mary and Margaret for importation of commodities 
of non-British origin not shipped from Great Britain, under 15 
Charles 11, c. 7, and 6 George 11, c. 13. 198 Upon subsequent libel in the New 
York Vice-Admiralty Court in September, owner Thomas Fowles, in a plea 
to the jurisdiction, alleged that the seizure having been made within the 
body and city of New York the Vice-Admiralty Court lacked jurisdiction. 199 
192 2 Chalmers, Opinions, 208-11; CSP, Col., 
1719-20, #52. 
193 A Defense of the New-England Charters 
(1765 reprint), 62-63. 
194 Adm. 1/3672/9. For the attitude of the 
Commissioners of the Customs on this "bad 
opinion" see 52 MS Mass. Archives (Letters, 
1724-38), 320. 
195 PC 2/89/257. For the vice-admiralty 
court condemnations see MS Mass. Ct. of Adm. 
Rec, 1718—26, 210, 212 (December 22, 1725). 
196 -j- ne prohibitions were made final in February, 
1725/6 (MS Mass. Sup. Ct. ]ud. Judgment 
800/{, 1725-29, 66-67). 
197 Ibid., 184. 
198 NYHR Parch., 225-D-1. 
199 Ibid. For copies of the libel and plea to the 
jurisdiction see James Alexander MSS, Box 45.