doleance, a rehearing below might ensue. 174 But the exercise of such jurisdiction 
upon doleance was not uncontested by the local jurats. 175 There are 
other nonappellate causes and seemingly non-doleant causes in which a remand 
to the island "to better examine" some point is found. 176 
During this early Stuart period the legal advisers continued to play a large 
part in the appellate process. It is observable that a greater number of definitive 
determinations emanated from this group than had earlier been the 
case. 177 However, the interrelation of the Board, the legal advisers, and the 
insular commissions or judiciaries is puzzling; in a given appeal it is difficult 
to predict the course which will be pursued. Seldom evident or articulate is 
the rationale upon which the Board decided to hear certain causes itself, to 
refer others to the legal advisers or to return others to the islands, although 
this question must have been of peculiar importance to the individual litigant 
174 1n the case of In re Briard (supra, n. 173), 
Lord Carew, the Guernsey governor, was 
ordered to set down some impartial course by 
means of commissioners in the island or elsewhere 
for hearing and determining the matter 
or else for certification thereof to Lord Carew. 
In the case of In re de Carteret (supra, n. 173) 
the Royal Court of Jersey with the governor or 
lieutenant-governor present was to re-examine 
the cause, to admit such evidence as was produced, 
and to proceed to sentence. 
175 In the case of In re Briard (ibid., 1616-17, 
325) remonstrance was made to the appointed 
commissioners, nine Guernsey jurats (see 
supra, n. 174), that proceeding on the commission 
"would be very prejudiciall to the 
authority of their charter and the King's court 
there." The commission thereupon did not 
determine the cause, although it certified that 
the property in question belonged to Briard, 
but left it to the consideration of the Board. 
The Board, since the commission was grounded 
upon doleance and not appeal, ordered that the 
cause should be further heard before his 
Majesty's learned counsel in England, the jurats 
to send some of their number to be present 
if they thought fit. One reason for this objection 
may have been that one bailiff on the 
commission was from Jersey, a feature to 
which we have already seen objections made 
(supra, n. 89). This case may also be considered 
as a transitional step to the later 
doleance procedure, in which petitions of doleance 
were automatically referred to the appropriate 
Royal Court to answer before conciliar 
action was taken thereon; see infra, p. 284. 
176 One Clement Grin et ux. complained that 
the Royal Court of Jersey confirmed to Thomas 
Poindexter and Benjamin Gavey a deed of gift 
obtained from Daniel Neel by sinister practices 
a few days before the decease of said Neel; 
diat by island law such gift was of no validity 
without forty days survival thereafter, but 
might be revoked by the next of kin (petitioner's 
wife here). The Royal Court was 
thereupon ordered to re-examine the validity of 
the deed in question by such evidence as 
should be produced, and to confirm or disallow 
the same. From such sentence the aggrieved 
party was to be allowed an appeal; "upon such 
appeale the sentence and reasons of the same 
be inserted, together with the examinacions of 
the witnesses, and whole proceedinges of the 
cause to bee exemplifyed under the seale of 
that isle" (In re Grin, APC, Bom., 1618-19, 
311). 
177 See Messervy v. de la Rocque (ibid., 1613- 
14, 46); Baillehache v. Baillehache (ibid., 
1615-16, 96); Dumaresq v. de Carteret (ibid., 
1615-16, 169); Alford v. Guile (ibid., 1619- 
21, 408); Burton v. Hampton (ibid., 1623-25, 
82); Gosselin v. Blanche (ibid., 1621-23, 424- 
25); Briard v. Mansell (ibid., 1621-23, 506); 
Peyton v. Herault (ibid., 1625-26, 116); Auley 
v. Le Jeune (PC 2/38/64); Blanche v. Quitteville 
(PC 2/39/384); cf. the action of the 
crown law officers upon the doleance of Edward 
Thompson. However, in addition to advising 
reversal or affirmance the legal advisers 
might accommodate the differences between 
the parties (De Vic v. Faleze, APC, Dom., 
1613-14, 72; Marchant v. Marchant, ibid., 
1619-21, 95), or they might advocate that the 
bailiff, assisted by some jurats, hear and determine 
all controversies between the parties without 
further appeal or petition to the Board 
(Girrard v. Girrard, ibid., 1623-25, 78).