at annapolis before revolution 33

same is void and erroneous in law and this attachment being
given instead of an execution by this law which is a new law
and shall not be extended being for more than the judgment
and not warranted thereby is void in law.

Which said first error being read, command was given to
the defendant's attorney for to argue and speak to the same
the which being largely argued and debated upon by the attor-
neys on both sides and by the court here fully heard and
understood it is the judgment of this court that the said error
by the defendant's attorney assigned is a sufficient error in
law—and therefore considered by the said court this day
(to wit) the seventeenth day of May anno. D. 1695—that the
judgment of the Provincial Court aforesaid for the reasons
aforesaid be set aside and reversed, and that the said Joseph
Chew garnishee as aforesaid be unto all things (he hath thereby
lost) restored; and it is likewise considered that the said
Joseph Chew recover against the said Thomas Tench the sum
of seven thousand nine hundred and twenty-four pounds of
tobacco by the court here adjudged for his costs and charges
in this behalf laid out and expended, and that the said Joseph
Chew may have thereof execution.

The tribunal which thus proceeded with the ap-
peals and writs of error appears to have been
called informally, from the first, the Court of Ap-
peals, or High Court of Appeals, reminiscent of
the High Court of Parliament. The first page
of the docket, opened in May of 1695, was headed
Court of Appeals; likewise acts of assembly and
even writs now and then used the name Court of
Appeals. But that was not the full, formal style of
the court, and as will be seen later, it did not be-
come the formal style until some years after the
Revolution. The formal records of proceedings
opened at first with such expressions as, "At a
Council," "At a Court held before Her Majesty's
President and Honorable Council for hearing Ap-
peals and Writs of Error," "At a Court of our Sov-