of the appeal or that such attempt was unsuccessful. 121 The factor of prejudgment 
by the legal advisers does not seem to have affected the form of the rehearing 
in the islands. 122 When a rehearing below was advised, there was no 
standardization of commission provisions. But the commissioners were often 
given directions to call the parties before them, 123 to weigh evidence produced 
by the parties, 124 or to consider former proceedings in the cause. 125 The element 
of composition and the necessity of obtaining the assent of the parties 
to the settlement of the comissioners was also present. 128 The usual provision 
in case of inability of commissioners finally to order the cause was certification 
of the proceedings to the Council for further consideration 127 or requiring 
bonds of the parties to prosecute the appeal before the Council with certification 
of the commissioners' proceedings therein and opinions thereon. 128 
The character of commission personnel is largely the same as found in commissions 
appointed by the Council without preliminary consultation. 129 
There is little information available as to the procedure adopted by the 
Council Board in its own hearings. It would appear that hearings were ex 
parte in many cases; perhaps action 
121 Gallie v. de la Rocque (25 ibid., 151); 
de la Rocque v. de la Rocque (26 ibid., 347); 
Blundell v. Soulement (28 ibid., 514); de 
Carteret v. Dumaresq (30 ibid., 161); Herault 
v. Nicholes (31 ibid., 251-52). 
122 Compare the cases cited supra with Trachy 
v. Lempriere (31 APC, Dom., 39); Gallie v. 
de la Rocque (25 ibid., 151); Herault v. 
Nicholes (31 ibid., 251). But notice that commissioners 
were directed to consider the former 
proceedings in Anley v. Stocall (32 ibid., 
478); Journeaulx v. Hampton (28 ibid., 538). 
Where the former proceedings had been found 
erroneous, it would seem scant wisdom to have 
them taken into consideration by the commissioners. 

123 Gallie v. de la Rocque (25 ibid., 151); 
Journeaulx v. Hampton (28 ibid., 538). 
124 See especially Regina v. Beauvoir (21 ibid., 
296); Harris v. de la March (25 ibid., 169). 
Also Journeaulx v. Hampton (supra, n. 123); 
Gallie v. de la Rocque (supra, n. 123); Trachy 
v. Lempriere (supra, n. 122). 
125 De la Rocque v. de la Rocque (28 APC, 
Dom., 296); Journeaulx v. Hampton (supra, 
n. 123). 
-126 Journeaulx v. Hampton (supra, n. 123); 
Gallie v. de la Rocque (supra, n. 123). In 
Marchant v. Beauvoir (23 APC, Dom., 374) 
where an appeal was returned for insular 
hearing, the island judiciary was reluctant 
would be guided by information fur- 
to grant execution of the sentence until the 
conciliar pleasure was known. 
127 Gallie v. de la Rocque, supra, n. 123. 
128 In Macharn v. Carey (supra, n. 120), commissioners 
were to take bonds of the parties 
to prosecute the appeal before the Council 
within 40 days thereafter. Compare the usual 
Guernsey three- or four-month period, supra, 
n. 83. 
129 Usually the commissioners were from the 
same island as the appeal, but cf. de Carteret 
v. Dumaresq (30 APC, Dom., 161). The 
commission might be composed of the governor 
alone (Payne v. Constant, 27 ibid., 338), 
the governor, bailiff, and jurats (Le Febure 
v. Harmon, 28 ibid., 107; Gallie v. de la 
Rocque, 25 ibid., 151), the governor, some 
jurats, and some laymen (Godfrey v. Messervy, 
29 ibid., 500). But in some cases the 
Royal Courts themselves were used to reexamine 
causes (de Soulement v. de Soulement, 
18 ibid., 39; le Hagais v. Cabot, 19 
ibid., 140). Commission size thus varied from 
one (governor) to thirteen (Royal Court); cf. 
the ten in de la March v. Gosselin (27 ibid., 
12). Personnel might be determined by the 
Council (Rowse v. Gower, 21 ibid., 298), the 
parties (Harris v. de la March, 25 ibid., 169), 
the jurats (Harris v. de la March, 26 ibid., 
16) or insular executives (Regina v. Beauvoir, 
21 ibid., 296; Rowse v. Labey, 27 ibid., 54).