strongest evidence that such laws were not repugnant to the laws of England, 
"for the crown can never be presumed to confirm an act that was passed contrary 
to the power given." A Jamaica act for prevention of lawsuits was alleged 
to be "expressly dissonent to the law of England," yet confirmed in 1683. 338 
By Goffe v. El\in 337 it appeared that lands in Jamaica would pass without 
livery and seisin, although livery and seisin was strictly required by the common 
law. Such practice therefore depended upon Jamaican usage, which was 
different from the common law. It appeared that the judges had great regard 
for the Jamaican usage, yet there could be no more immemorial custom in 
Jamaica than in Carolina. 338 In Blan\ard v. Galdy 33 ° it was held that plantation 
laws might differ from the laws of England, and several Barbados acts, 
although different from the rules of the common and statute law, were confirmed 
by the crown. In Ellis v. Loyd 340 the Chancellor was governed by a 
Nevis act regulating interest at 10 percent, although that act differed from the 
laws of England. 341 
In Pennsylvania an act prescribing the forms of declaration of fidelity, 
abjuration, and affirmation established forms extremely different from all the 
English forms. Yet this law was confirmed by the King in Council in March, 
1724/5. 342 Michie concluded this semantic examination with mention of a 
custom of the town of Denbigh, Wales. By this custom a feme covert with her 
husband might alienate land by surrender and examination in court, this 
binding the wife and her heirs as a fine. This custom was not abrogated by 
2 Henry VIII, c. 26, which introduced the common law into Wales, although 
the statute expressly enacted that the laws of England should be of force in 
Wales and in direct terms abolished the Welsh customs. Yet it did not abolish 
the custom of Denbigh, for the reason, given by the reporters, that the custom 
was reasonable and agreeable to the rules of the common law. The Chief 
Justice pointed out that there was no writ of covenant, no concord, no king's 
silver, no likeness to a fine. Surrender and examination were all, yet the custom 
was held to be agreeable to the common law rules and not taken away by 
an act enforcing the extension of the English common law into Wales. If the 
custom had been in any manner repugnant to the common law, the statute of 
2 Henry VIII, c. 26, must have abolished it. 343 
The Chief Justice then stressed the desirability of colonial assemblies as- 
336 Ibid., 234-35. See Laws of Jamaica (1683), 
166. 
341 MS Journal So. Car. Court Common Pleas, 
'754-63, 235-36. 
337 2 Mod. 239. 
342 See 1 Charters and Acts of Assembly Pa. 
(1762), 98. For the confirmation, see 3 Stat, 
at Large Pa., 514. 
338 MS Journal So. Car. Court Common Pleas, 
'754-53, 235- 
839 4 Mod. 222, 226. 
343 MS Journal So. Car. Court Common Pleas, 
2 36. The reporters mentioned were 
340 1 Eq. Cases Abridged 289.