part taken by the Board in deciding appeals upon hearings held before it. 160 
These hearings were not confined to the adversarial arguments; in addition to 
hearing the parties, their representatives, and counsel, the Board in formulating 
its judgment might rely upon information about local law supplied by 
the island judiciary. 161 Sometimes the Council might act ex parte, reversing 
upon petition of the appellant for failure of respondent to appear, 162 or upon 
respondent's petition, dismissing an appeal for failure to prosecute. 163 
The Council also made interlocutory disposition of causes without consultation 
with any other body. These dispositions were made for various 
reasons and in different ways. Upon application of appellants, causes were 
referred back to the islands for rehearing or review. 164 Where the sole issue 
was one of fact, the Board ordered Jersey commissioners to examine witnesses 
and to return a certificate on the disputed point so that further action could 
be taken. 165 Or where a cause could not be fitly examined in Council, it might 
be referred back to the island judiciary. 166 A similar reference might be made 
be better prepared to advise the King. Matters 
ecclesiastical were referred to the Archbishop of 
Canterbury and the Bishop of Winchester 
(ibid., 1618-19, 84)- 
160 See Hue v. Lempriere (ibid., 1616-17, 
128); Messervy v. Mattingly (ibid., 1618-19, 
230); Rex v. Baillehache (ibid., 1619-21, 
265); Langlois v. Messervy (ibid., 1621-23, 
241); Oliver v. Jacquett (ibid., 1623-2s, 192); 
cf. ibid., 1613-14, 604, 621, where original 
jurisdiction in a dispute as to the office of 
bailiff in Jersey was assumed, but upon hearing 
it was ordered that the matter be brought 
before the Chief Justice. 
161 Langlois v. Messervy (ibid., 1621-23, 241), 
where the Council stated that it was evident 
from letters from the greater number of the 
Royal Court that plaintiff-respondent by the 
law and custom of Jersey could not be put to 
his oath in this case, as claimed by appellant. 
162 Rex v. Dumaresq (ibid., 1619-21, 280); de 
Rues v. Langlois (ibid., 1621-23, 319). 
163 Rex v. Fiot, ibid., 1623-2s, 196 (appeal 
declared void upon respondent's allegation that 
it was not prosecuted within three months and 
no cause shown for delay). 
164 Herault v. Auley, ibid., i6is-i6, 290 (allegation 
that the cause was heard by too few 
jurats, ordered reheard in the presence of all 
or most of the Royal Court); Kellett v. Dumaresq, 
ibid., 1619-21, 323 (allegation that respondent 
"takeinge advantage of an imperfect 
verdict, contrary to equitie, and before the 
whole legall separacion of the premisses was 
tryed, caused the said verdict to be approved in 
a waste paper by the bailiff and some jurates 
there, to the great hurt and losse of him the 
said appellant," ordered a review made by 
twenty-four impartial persons chosen by both 
parties). Cf. the action upon the petition of 
Elias Dumaresq ordering Elias de Carteret et al. 
to call before them the petitioner, and one 
Duhamell, and to re-examine upon interrogatories 
the witnesses formerly produced in an 
assault suit. If these commissioners found that 
Duhamell had injured the petitioner, they were 
to cause him to make satisfaction, or otherwise 
to report to the Board the true state tiiereof 
with their opinion (PC 2/46/81). 
165 In Hue v. Renouf (APC, Dotn., 1621-23, 
42) it was stated that "appealant produceth a 
certificate under the handes of 4 witnesses by 
which he endeavoureth to prove the sentence 
to be erroneous and the defendant hath the 
handes of divers of the jurattes which he hath 
gotten since the appeale certifieing the contrary." 
Thereupon, commissioners were ordered 
to call before them the above four witnesses 
and any others the parties produced and by 
interrogatories in writing take examinations on 
oath as to two stated issues. 
166 In Messervy v. Godfrey (ibid., 1621-23, 
144) the sentence appealed from concerned the 
full performance of a contract between the 
parties. This contract "consistedi of many 
particulars which cannot fitly be examined 
here, the same requiring a personall view and 
judgement." So the Royal Court by consent