prohibitions were moved for in the Supreme Court and granted. 215 Upon 
declarations in prohibition that the court of admiralty lacked jurisdiction 
over a matter arising within the body of a county under 13 Richard 11, c. 5, 
15 Richard 11, c. 3, and 2 Henry IV, c. n, and that the owners were British 
subjects, writs of consultation were denied. 216 Although supplied with authorities 
that the question whether a ship was prize or not must be tried in the 
admiralty courts and that no prohibition should issue, Pearse had little hope 
of success in the Supreme Court and trusted to error proceedings for relief. 217 
Upon appeal to the Governor and Council the Supreme Court judgments 
were affirmed on April 17,1741. 218 An appeal was moved for by counsel James 
Alexander and allowed in both cases upon compliance with the royal instructions 
219 Both appeals were entered and referred to the Committee on November 
19,1741, 220 but it was not until March 23, 1742/3, that the Privy Council 
ordered reversal of the judgments below, issuance of writs of consultation, and 
directions to the Vice-Admiralty Court to proceed in the original causes. 221 
When the writs of consultation were produced, the New York Vice-Admiralty 
215 NYHR Parch., 217-B-3. For the suggestion 
of Cummins, see ibid., 42-G-6. 
21VNYHR Parch., 217-B-3; William Livingston 
MS Book, of Precedents, N.Y. Slate Lib. 
MS, 1329/276-88. 
217 In some considerations upon the cause, 
Lewis Morris listed the following authorities: 
"Sea Laws 470"; 1 Siderfin 320, 367; 2 Keble 
176; Carthew 474-76. Morris also noted that 
if the Supreme Court rejected the plea to the 
jurisdiction, "I take it that all the benefit of 
the plea may be preserved by bill of exceptions. 
If the court overruled it ... as then its a 
record of the court we can have the benefit 
of it on writ of error by means of writ of 
diminution and what will be of use upon a 
writ of error I think is what should Chiefly be 
held in view for reasons more than are proper 
to committ to writing" (Morris MSS [Rutgers 
Univ. Lib.]). 
218 19 MS Mins. N.Y. Council, 78, 97, 98 
(volume in reverse). 
219 1 bid., 98 (volume in reverse). On April 23 
the court ordered Captain Pearse to give in 
security in the sum of £650 sterling for the 
Restoration and .£731/5 for the Canary Merchant, 
with two additional sureties each in onehalf 
the said sums in each appeal. Lewis Morris, 
Jr., and Lewis Johnston were accepted as 
sureties and Horsmanden, C. J., ordered to take 
the recognizances (ibid., 106 [volume in reverse]). 
On April 27 the recognizances were 
returned by Horsmanden and filed (ibid., 109 
[volume in reverse]). For copies of the 
recognizances see James Alexander MSS, Box 
45- 
220 PC 2/97/13-14. Upon Captain Pearse's 
application to the Lords of the Admiralty to 
prosecute the appeal in his behalf (Adm. 
I /3675/36), King's Advocate General Paul was 
of the opinion "that the Admiralty has always 
exercised a jurisdiction in cases of prize in all 
ports and harbours within His Majesty's domains, 
and that all ships and goods of enemies 
seized in port, have been in all wars condemned 
as perquisites of Admiralty, in the Court of 
Admiralty. And I never heard that the jurisdiction 
of the Admiralty was ever disputed 
in such cases. Several Spanish ships seized in 
the Port of London, Exeter, and other ports 
have been condemned this war" (ibid., 34; 
Dec. 23, 1741, opinion). Cf. an earlier Dec. 18 
opinion; ibid., 35. 
221 PC 2/97/305-10. 344-45- For the presentation 
of the Orders in Council and the order 
thereon by the Governor and Council see 19 
MS Mins. N.Y. Council, 231-36. Before the 
Committee it was objected by respondents that 
the appellant, having demurred to the declaration 
in prohibition, thereby admitted the truth 
of the facts therein alleged and that these facts 
were sufficient to support the prohibition. This 
was not only in respect of the general right 
of jurisdiction in these cases, but in regard the 
admiralty court had rejected the plea of respondents 
denying the prize to be Spanish 
property, thereby depriving respondents of their 
just defense, which alone was sufficient to pro-