also usual upon entry of an appeal to enjoin the appellant to prosecute his 
appeal according to law and custom (or some equivalent phrase) and/or to 
give his attendance until the appeal was heard and he was dismissed from 
such attendance. 86 
When the actual petition had been presented to the Privy Council, various 
methods were utilized to examine the appeal. Variations were possible in the 
body or bodies that heard or examined the appeal or in their composition. If 
the appeal should be referred to conciliar legal advisers or if insular commissioners 
were employed, diversities in the terms and the scope of the reference 
or commission were possible. 
The simplest situation procedurally would be conciliar disposition of an 
appeal without reference to an ancillary body. However, there are no cases 
at this period in which the Council reversed or affirmed a judgment below 
without a previous reference to legal advisers. Appeals are to be found where 
the Council in the first instance ordered rehearings below. 87 But it is doubtful 
whether these orders amounted to a reversal plus an order for a rehearing 
below. 88 They are rather in the nature of a jurisdictional transference of hearings 
from the Privy Council to island commissioners. In addition, although 
the islanders maintained that Privy Council jurisdiction should be confined 
to causes coming before that body on appeal, 89 it is difficult to determine when 
these rehearing orders issued upon appeals proper and when upon petitions 
of complaint. 90 
86 Gallie v. de la Rocque (25 APC, Bom., 
131); Macham v. Carey (30 ibid., 74); Anley 
v. Stocall (31 ibid., 276). 
87 In Godfrey v. Messervy appellant sought insular 
re-examination by some impartial persons 
nominated by the Council Board. Therefore, 
the governor, three jurats and two other inhabitants, 
or any three thereof, were directed 
to call the parties before them, and upon examination 
of proofs and the former proceedings 
in the cause to make an order for appellant's 
relief (29 ibid., 500). To the same effect 
see Sare v. Lempriere (29 ibid., 584); Le Porke 
v. Mountes (30 ibid., 642); cf. Trachy v. Lempriere, 
where appellant desired "that the matter 
(as is usual in like cases) may be referred to a 
re-examynasion." But the Council consulted 
learned counsel before ordering such examination 
(31 ibid., 39). 
88 The conciliar letters ordering rehearings 
made no mention of reversal or avoiding of 
former proceedings. Such rehearings might be 
held before bodies other than the courts appealed 
from. See Godfrey v. Messervy {supra, 
n. 87); Sare v. Lempriere {supra, n. 87); Le 
Porke v. Mountes {supra, n. 87). The rehearing 
referees might be directed to consider the 
former proceedings in the cause. See Godfrey 
v. Messervy {supra, n. 87). 
39 In Guillam v. Le Court the Council had already 
issued an order for an insular rehearing 
when "testemoniall under the Seale of the Isle 
of Jersey" was produced that all causes concerning 
inheritance should be first heard by 
bailiff and jurats and not brought before the 
Council by appeal until sentence was given. 
The Board thereupon revoked the former 
letters and referred the matter to the ordinary 
course of island laws (32 ibid., 194). In appointing 
mixed Jersey and Guernsey commissioners 
to hear a complaint from Jersey, the 
Council stated that such appointment was not 
to constitute a precedent, that "the controversies 
arrising within the Isle shold onlie be 
tried by thinhabitauntes there and where their 
appeal? is lawfullie admitted" (12 ibid., 188— 
89). 
90 In several petitions of complaint before the 
Council there was a complained of sentence 
below, but there is nothing to indicate a regu-