The Council's authority was also circumvented by parties making application 
to the King and procuring Commissions of Review under the Great Seal 
in causes in which the Board had acted. Former proceedings were concealed, 
and thus the terms of the Commission inclined to be contrary to former orders 
issued in the cause by the Board. 201 Apparently the Board, upon discovery of 
the deception, was forced to bring it to the attention of the King and obtain a 
supersedeas of the Commission of Review. The false informant might be committed 
to prison. 2o2 
In 1627 abuse of doleance procedure by Guernsey litigants was brought to 
the attention of the Board. 203 A previous attempt made by local ordinance in 
1623 to remedy the abuse had apparently been unsuccessful. 204 Therefore, the 
Council enjoined due observance of the June 9, 1605, Order in Council and 
ordered that no doleance be allowed without security given as in other appeals. 
Thereafter no manner of appeal, whether by doleance or otherwise, was to be 
made without security of given by complainant to be forfeited to the 
island poor in case of failure in his appeal of doleance. No other warrants 
might be served in these causes but those issued immediately by the Board. 20! 
In 1635 the Privy Council arrived at the opinion that too many appeals were 
being taken from Jersey for mere purposes of delay. 206 To rectify this abuse a 
sterling appealable minimum was laid down; also, all appeals were 
201 Salomon Blundell, after several sentences 
given in Jersey and affirmed on appeal in a 
suit with Robert Durel, by misrepresentations 
and concealment of the former proceedings in 
the cause obtained from the King a Commission 
of Review or Relief under the Great 
Seal of England directed to certain commissioners 
of Blundell's choice. These commissioners 
proceeded to hearing, disregarded all 
earlier proceedings, and reversed the former 
sentences. The King, upon being acquainted 
with this course, considered the consequence 
to island justice and to the authority of the 
Council Table, whose sentences demanded 
more respect from his subjects, and granted a 
supersedeas revoking the Commission and the 
proceedings had thereunder (APC, Dom., 
1613-14, 114). Thomas Marchant, the elder, 
concealing the former proceedings had in the 
cause, obtained from the King a commission 
under the Great Seal to Governor Peyton of 
Jersey et al. to hear and end a suit with 
Thomas Marchant, the younger. But Peyton 
was ordered by the Board not to alter any 
settlement made in the cause, notwithstanding 
the commission surreptitiously obtained (ibid., 
1616-17, 326; ibid., 1618-19, 51). 
202 See ibid., 1613-14, 114. 
203 The Guernsey inhabitants complained that 
the June 9, 1605, Order in Council (see supra, 
p. 25) was being violated by litigious persons, 
under the name of doleance, bringing over 
their parties and suits by warrants of divers 
persons without giving security and using such 
legal and accustomed forms as were used in 
other appeals (ibid., 1627, 370). 
204 1 Recueil d'ordonnances de la cour royalc 
de I'lsle de Guernesey (ed. R. Macculloch, 
1852), 146-47. 
205 APC, Dom., 1627, 370-71; Safford and 
Wheeler, op. cit., 250-51. For later violation 
of this regulation see PC 2/40/245; PC 2/45/ 
396-97. 
206 PC 2/44/634. This abuse was peculiarly 
limited to Jersey. All seventeen appeals previously 
entered in the Council register for the 
reign of Charles I and abandoned were from 
Jersey. Of the thirteen appeals entered and 
abandoned during the reign of the first 
Stuart, twelve were from Jersey. Of course, 
respondent could always petition that the 
appeal be declared void, after the three month 
period limited for prosecution had expired; 
see Auley v. Le Jeune (APC, Dom., 1627, 
396); Le Breton v. Bocquerell (PC 2/44/422).