formation to be found in the Council registers. To some extent the procedure 
is indicated by the terms of the various references. 106 It is evident that in many 
cases the parties were heard ore tenus by the legal advisers, 107 who evinced a 
dislike for ex parte hearings. 108 In some cases counsel, as well as the parties 
themselves, were heard. 109 In addition to parties to the appeal, members of 
the island judiciary might be directed to appear before the referees. 110 
The scope of the review power exercised by the legal advisers was broad, 
including errors both of law and of fact. 111 Essentially a rehearing of the cause 
took place, at which additional evidence not introduced below might be submitted. 
This is indicated by the terms of certain references to the legal advisers 
112 and by several orders for the taking of additional evidence in the 
106 These references included: "To examine 
the appeale" (Perin v. Perin, 18 APC, Dom., 
386); "that you will heare the same cause 
of appeale" (Rowse v. Gower, 21 ibid., 299); 
to certify their opinions "when you have enformed 
your selves throughlie of all pointes 
of substance or difficultie" (Gallie v. de la 
Rocque, 25 ibid., 144); to call before them 
the parties, and upon knowledge taken of the 
case by the petitions, informations, evidences 
and such proofs as should be exhibited and by 
the former proceedings to make a final order 
(de la Rocque v. de la Rocque, 28 ibid., 297); 
to examine two petitions, one of appeal, another 
of complaint, exhibited against appellant, 
to have the parties appear before them, with 
such proofs and witnesses as they could produce, 
and to proceed to set down a final order 
(Harris v. Arthur, 15 ibid., 403). 
107 See particularly Paine v. Fautrat (14 ibid., 
31); Perin v. Perin (19 ibid., 36) ("upon 
hearing of the matter at large debated"). 
108 In Gallie v. Maugier (25 ibid., 151) the 
legal advisers reported that "by reason of 
the absence of the adverse partie they cannot 
indifferentlie judge of the full substance of 
the matter," so a hearing was ordered by a 
Jersey commission. In Macham v. Carey (30 
ibid. the legal advisers reported that "the 
appeale coulde not be proceeded in as it 
ought to have bin" because of respondent's 
absence. But cf. the enigmatic statement in 
Marchant v. Beauvoir (29 ibid., 489), that 
"the appeales which are made from the sentences 
given by the Bail iff es and Jurattes of 
the Isles of Guernsey and Jerzey are to receave 
an ordinary tryall either with the appealant or 
defendant." See also Rowse v. Gower (21 
ibid., 298) where when an appeal was referred 
to the crown law officers, they were of opinion 
the adverse party should be summoned. In 
Beauvoir v. Carey (30 ibid., 736) a new hearing 
was ordered when Governor Leighton alleged 
that he was prejudiced by a former order 
after a hearing at which he was not represented. 

109 For hearings of both parties and counsel 
at large see de Carteret v. Dumaresq (30 
ibid., 161); Beauvoir v. Beauvoir (28 ibid., 
596). 
110 In Paine v. Fautrat (14 ibid., 47) "some 
of the Justices" were "to repaire hither to 
awnswere the validitie of a sentence given by 
them." In the same cause the bailiff was directed 
to be present, probably because of his 
petition for repeal of a conciliar letter as prejudicial 
to the administration of Guernsey 
justice (14 ibid., 31). 
111 See particularly the 1580 conciliar regulations 
for Guernsey, supra, pp. 13-14. 
112 In Harris v. Arthur the legal referees were 
to cause the parties "together with such proofes 
and wytnesses as should be produced" to appear 
before them (15 APC, Dom., 404). In 
de la Rocque v. de la Rocque the legal advisers 
were to take knowledge "of the state 
of the cause by the peticions, informacions, 
evidences, and such proofes as they shall exhibite 
unto you" (28 ibid., 297); cf. supra, 
n. 106. In Gosselin v. Blundell (29 ibid., 570) 
the bailiff and jurats were ordered to deliver 
to the parties all writings produced at the 
original hearing, especially a certain compromise 
between the parties which appellant 
complained was withheld from him. Directions 
upon reference of an appeal to include the 
former proceedings in the cause (supra, p. 17) 
would certainly be redundant if review jurisdiction 
were confined to errors appearing in 
the record.