Jersey matters. 193 Upon a report from such a committee a further reference 
might be made to the crown law officers or other administrative officials. 194 
An order was made in 1635 which established a committee to hear and determine 
all appeals from Jersey. 195 The establishment of this committee, however, 
did not prevent further references of Jersey appeals to the legal advisers. 196 The 
introduction of a committee to hear appeals thus proved premature. 
During the period under discussion the operation of the appellate system 
was impaired in several respects. In many cases parties appeared before the 
Board without giving adversarial notice and by false representations obtained 
favorable orders in their causes. 197 This would seem to be an obvious weakness 
in a system based to a large degree upon ex parte hearings. 198 If a letter or order 
were obtained by such misrepresentations or concealments, it was necessary for 
the injured party to appear and petition the Board for relief. The usual relief 
afforded was the suspension of the letter or order based upon false representations 
199 The Board might sometimes find itself abused by false allegations 
in complaints made to it. 200 
193 See the references to the Lord Privy Seal, 
the Earl o£ Danby, the Vice-Chamberlain, 
Secretary Coke, and Secretary Windebank or 
any three of them (PC 2/43/302); to the Lord 
Treasurer, the Lord Privy Seal, the Earl of 
Dorset, the Vice-Chamberlain, Secretary Coke, 
and Secretary Windebank or any three or more 
of them (PC 2/44/361). For terminological 
recognition of a Jersey committee see the mention 
of a report of the "Committee for the 
business of Jersey" (PC 2/43/368). 
19i A committee report on Jersey abuses concerning 
revenues and government was referred 
to the Attorney General to call in Lieutenant- 
Governor de Carteret and to direct and settle 
such order as was requisite (PC 2/44/426). 
There was also a reference to the Lord Treasurer 
in the same connection. 
195 PC 2/44/634 (June 12, 1635). The committee 
consisted of the Lord Privy Seal, the 
Earl of Danby (governor of Guernsey), the 
Vice-Chamberlain (governor of Jersey), Secretary 
Coke and Secretary Windebank or any two 
of them. This committee was to call to its assistance 
the Attorney General, the Solicitor 
General, and the King's Advocate or any one 
thereof. 
196 See Gedeon v. de Soulement (PC 
2/47/96); de Carteret v. Dumaresq (PC 
2/51/406). 
197 See Auley v. Le Jeune (PC 2/38/64); 
Blanche v. Quitteville (PC 2/39/403, 448; 
PC 2/40/247, 376); Durell v. Seale (PC 
2/39/684); Fiot v. Fautrat (PC 2/45/369; 
PC 2/46/428); Neale v. Messurier (PC 
2 /49/ 2 98). In Auley v. Le Jeune respondent 
falsely represented that appellant had not 
entered his appeal within the time limited. In 
Blanche v. Quitteville appellant obtained a 
favorable report ex parte without acquainting 
the referees with the former proceedings in the 
cause. In Durell v. Seale appellant misrepresented 
that his attorney was mad. In Neale v. 
Messurier appellant concealed earlier proceedings 
in the cause. In the closely related field 
of complaints see the Blanche-Gardiner dispute 
(PC 2/40/247), the Hue-Grossier dispute (PC 
2/40/543), the Roberts-de Lisle-Priaulx dispute 
(PC 2/42/92). 
198 But note that in Blanche v. Quitteville 
(supra, n. 197) and Neale v. Messurier (supra, 
n. 197) the orders were based on hearings before 
referees, not upon ex parte considerations 
by the Board. The danger of ex parte proceedings 
was guarded against to some degree by 
ordering the adverse party, if he had any 
objections, to show cause within a limited 
period (APC, Dom., 1626, 18). 
199 An oath might be used to determine the 
truth of ex parte allegations where a suspending 
letter was sought (Auley v. Le Jeune, 
supra, n. 197). Or referees might be appointed 
to examine affidavits and take testimony (Durell 
v. Seale, supra, n. 197). 
200 See PC 2/40/86, 543.