Court constitute by the Kings Commission_.[12] And as to submitting to their Acts of Council when derogatory to His Majestys Interest and the Authority of his Court of Admiralty (which I conceive their Act of which I complain is) was what I could not comply with, without rendering my self unworthy of the Trust committed to me and betraying thereof. Notwithstanding of all which they persisted in their Resolution, and not only Debarred me from the Use of the Court House but also to deliver up the Negroes, etc., to be sold, as I had ordered, and afterward sold them amongst themselves at an undervalue: By which their Contempt of his Majesty's Authority and Court of Admiralty is obvious, Yea, their _incroaching upon and usurping of the Admiralty Jurisdiction contrary to Queen Ann's express Order_ abovementioned is Palpable, And their refusing to give that aid and assistance which the Judge did justly require of them in the terms of his Commission appear to be highly punishable, if not a just ground for forfeiture of their Charter, more especially being conjoyned with this of a great many of that Colony, their keeping a continued Correspondence with the Pirates, which renders the fair Traders very uneasy, and insecure. All which I humbly submit to their Lordships Consideration, and pray for redress, suitable encouragement, and support to him, who is Sir Your most humble Servant J. MENZEIS. BOSTON 20th July 1721. [Footnote 11: A commission of a vice-admiralty judge (Richard Morris, New York, 1762) may be seen in English translation in E.C. Benedict, _The American Admiralty_, fourth ed. (Albany, 1910), pp. 76-80, and others in doc. no. 180, _post_, and doc. no. 181.] [Footnote 12: See doc. no. 105, note 1.] CASES OF JOHN ROSE ARCHER AND OTHERS. _119. Trial of John Fillmore and Edward Cheesman. May 12, 1724._[1]