when the subject matter was of too little value to justify the expense of an appeal hearing. 167 Or a cause might be remanded to arbitration in the islands. 188 In addition to these conciliar letters issued in causes coming before the Board by way of appeal, orders were made in nonappellate causes. No great distinction was made between appellate jurisdiction and jurisdiction to order rehearings or re-examinations in other causes. 109 The island rehearing seems to have been considered peculiarly of use when an appeal would not lie; the attitude of the Council emphasized that subjects should not lack proper redress for formal reasons. 170 In this connection the doleance was of great importance 171 Of civil law origin, the doleance was in the nature of a complaint against the judges rather than an appeal. It has also been defined as "a petition for a review of proceedings not brought up in the ordinary course of appeal." 172 This form of petition was considered the proper procedural step when an appeal had been refused below. 173 Upon application for relief by way of was ordered to take an "exact view and examination" in the presence of the parties whether the contract had been fully performed. In Oliver v. Jacquett {ibid., 1623-25, 192) the cause could not "be ordered or sett out heere [at the Council Board] by reason of the locall customes and usuages of that island and the many witnesses to be produced and examined in either part inhabiting in the said island." 167 Le Roulx v. Le Roulx (ibid., 1621—23, 7o). 168 Chapman v. Le Geyt, ibid., 1621-23, 7° (sentence given by insufficient number of jurats). 169 In Bertram v. Dumaresq (ibid., 1618-19, 270) an appeal was entered (see ibid., 239), but a composition was reached by the parties and approved by the Council. Of this procedure the Council stated that "whereas wee understand that by the custom of the isle there is fyne or fee due unto you the bayliffe pour fol appel in cases where any appeale is not prosecuted, we have been moved least this should be taken for an appeale to prey you not to demand any such duty in this cause." One Poindextre having complained of some hard proceedings against him in a battery action, the Board declared that it was not usual to permit ex parte impeachment of insular justice. Since the complaint hinged on a question of fact, three persons in the island were ordered to take the testimony of witnesses and to certify the true state of the matter. From two reports returned with many examinations and depositions, it appeared that the proceedings were such that they could not be approved of; the evidence not supporting the sentence, it was ordered repealed (ibid., 1618-19, 370; ibid., i6ig-2i, 213). 170 In Gardener v. Marchant (ibid., 1616-17, 137) Gardener petitioned for relief against a Guernsey sentence in a battery action, alleging the partiality of several jurats. The Lords stated that they could not take notice of the matter by way of appeal and summon the parties over, "the matter beinge of such a nature as, by the customes of that island and the orders of this Boarde perhapps will not conveniently permitt any such proceedinges. But it beinge in no sorte reasonable that his Majesty's subjectes should for matter of forme want redresse, if there be cause of grievance," the bailiff and three jurats were authorized to review the previous proceedings, to examine such witnesses as were produced, and to make a final order in the cause. 171 On the doleance see Poingdestre, op. cit., 2 35-37; 3 Le Geyt, op. cit., 339-44. It is alleged by the former that doleances were subject to the same rules as to entrance and prosecution as appeals (op. cit., 235). See infra (p. 32), the 1627 conciliar regulation of doleances from Guernsey, but this regulation on its face would not seem to extend to Jersey. 172 Report of the Commission Appointed to Inquire into the Civil, Municipal, and Ecclesiastical Laws of the Island of Jersey (1861), liv. 173 See In re Briard (APC, Dom., 1616-17, 213); In re de Carteret (ibid., 1618-19, 237)-