ordered to be prosecuted between the beginning of Easter Term and the end 
of Midsummer Term. Provision was also made for award of damages and infliction 
of penalties for failure to prosecute within the time limited. 207 -This 
action is worthy of note, because only a few years earlier there had been complaint 
that appeals from Jersey were being prevented by the island judiciary. 208 
Several attempts were made to appeal in cases where an appeal would not 
lie, notably in the case of criminal causes in Guernsey. 209 Although these attempts 
were unsuccessful, the Board indicated that the nonavailability of an 
appeal would not deprive an aggrieved party of some other form of relief. 210 
The Council was further irritated because of the flouting of its authority by the 
islanders. One aspect of this contempt is seen in the difficulty encountered by 
the Board in enforcing its orders within the islands. 211 In an extreme case a 
207 PC 2/44/634-35. It was also ordered that 
the governor or his deputy be present at all 
sentences in any matter which concerned the 
royal interest or prerogative, and that the 
King's ministers might appeal wherein the 
King was concerned; cf. 3 Le Geyt, op. cit., 
319- 
208 Complaint was made that appeals were 
generally prevented in cases where they should 
have been permitted, whereby the Jersey court 
arrogated to itself the authority of a supreme 
tribunal. This was termed by the Board so 
far beyond the limits of the court's commission 
and the laws and customs that it might 
have been taken notice of by another method 
than admonition, "the rather considering the 
care that hath been alwaies taken here upon 
appeales to countenance and mayntaine the 
justice of that court." The court was thereupon 
directed to give the subjects the customary 
liberty of appealing to the Privy Council 
(APC, Dom., 1619-21, 107). 
209 petition was presented from the Royal 
Court complaining against John Blanche for 
appealing from a March 10, 1628/9, sentence 
in a criminal matter, claiming that by custom 
no appeal should be allowed. The Board answered 
that if the allegations were true, the 
sentence was to stand and be in force, and 
the court was to proceed to sentence in another 
cause of the same nature without admitting 
an appeal (PC 2/39/290). In Neale v. 
Messurier (PC 2/46/49) an attempted appeal 
in a criminal cause was disallowed, on the 
basis of the restraining October, 1580, Order 
in Council. But the Solicitor General, to whom 
the matter was referred, reported that Messurier 
had opposed the allowance of the appeal 
on the ground of some former order to 
bar appeals in criminal causes, although an 
appeal was admitted in a recent case produced 
by Neale as precedent. 
210 PC 2/43/567. The Board stated "for if it 
should fall out that a man cannot appeal here 
upon a criminal cause as is pretended, yet 
there is then the greater reason why the 
proceedings should be full and if such apparent 
injustice were indeed done as is pretended 
then both the civil laws and all reason 
willeth that he should have recourse to his 
soveraigne by way of doleance which is the 
only remedy left, where appeales by lawe are 
taken away." 
211 See Le Geyt v. Messervy (PC 2/38/404; 
PC 2/39/135) where the recalcitrant attitude 
of Messervy seems to have influenced the 
Board in deciding that he should be proceeded 
against in the Court of Star Chamber, and 
Blanche v. Gosselin (PC 2/39/518) where 
the Board, finding the dilatory conduct of the 
Royal Court strange and offended that conciliar 
directions were neglected, ordered that 
such directions be put into force. See also 
PC 2/41/389 (dispute between one Roberts 
and Peter de Lisle and Thomasina Priaulx); 
PC 2/42/181 (Royal Court of Guernsey failed 
fully to execute certificate of Reeves, the King's 
Advocate). It was necessary peremptorily to 
order the Jersey Royal Court to obey directions 
made upon the doleance of John Le 
Vavasseur. Apparently some jurats questioned 
the order and the Board reheard the whole 
matter and was confirmed in its opinion. But 
it was felt that such presumption from the 
islanders should not be tolerated in futuro 
(PC 2/41/546). The Jersey Royal Court also 
refused to enroll a conciliar letter in one cause 
where the letter was slightly damaged (APC. 
Dom., 1616-17, 2 39)-