conciliar messenger might be dispatched to the islands to enforce an order. 212 
The Board also met with recalcitrance and indifference when attempts were 
made to compel parties to appear before it 213 or to appear properly prepared 
214 
In its main outlines, procedure during the first Stuart period was similar 
to earlier procedure, but traces of formalization made their appearance. As to 
the early steps upon appeal, little advance was made, although it did become 
exceptional for the appeal not to be entered in the Privy Council register. 215 
But it was still rare to have the appearance of the respondent entered therein. 216 
The Council employed some species of summons or notice in certain appeals, 
but little information is available as to the extent of its use or the manner of its 
issuance. 217 
212 Upon one Le Vavasseur's informing the 
Board that orders issued in his behalf had not 
been obeyed, an open warrant was directed 
to Francis Taylor, conciliar messenger, to go 
to Jersey and see the orders obeyed; anyone 
blocking execution was to be taken into custody 
and brought before the Board to answer the 
contempt (PC 2/43/548). 
213 See PC 2/42/233. Contradictory orders 
might result from the ex parte nature of many 
hearings; see PC 2/43/174. 
214 PC 2/38/397- 
215 There is no evidence that a summons was 
issued automatically upon entry of the appeal. 
It was still usual to recite that the appeal was 
entered in the Privy Council Register for 
the indemnity of the appellant (Dumaresq v. 
de Carteret, APC, Dom., 1613-14, 567), and/ 
or to enjoin prosecution of the appeal (Baillehache 
v. Baillehache, ibid., 408). As to the 
time in which an appeal could be entered, 
note the claim advanced by Peter Beauvoir of 
Guernsey of a year and a day in which to 
enter an appeal after sentence had been given 
(PC 2/40/90); but cf. the dismissal of Beauvoir's 
appeal three days earlier for nonprosecution 
(PC 2/40/89). In Messervy v. Dumaresq 
(PC 2/40/378), an appeal was entered late, 
but affidavit was made that the delay was not 
caused by appellant's laches. The appeal was 
therefore ordered to stand good until sufficient 
objection was made. 
216 Only three cases occurred during the 
James I period. Baillehache v. Baillehache 
(APC, Dom., 1613—14, 409); de Jersey v. 
Brehault (ibid., 1618-ig, 209); Briard v. Le 
Marchant (ibid., 224). Appearance was stated 
to be entered in the register for respondent's 
indemnity, and respondent was enjoined to 
attend until dismissal or until the appeal was 
determined. A few more instances are found 
during the reign of Charles I. See Fiot v. 
Le Brocq (PC 2/43/634); de Beauvoir v. 
Priaulx (PC 2/45/341); Briard v. Bonamy 
(PC 2/46/235). 
217 In Rex v. Dumaresq (APC, Dom, i6ig— 
21, 280) it was recited that the respondents 
"havinge ben (accordinge to the lawe and custome 
in such cases required) lawfully and 
sufficiently warned to appeare here to mayntaine 
their pretended tythes and the said sentence 
and interlocutory orders, did faile to 
appeare at all therein." In de Rues v. Langlois 
(ibid., 1621-23, 319) it was related that the 
"said Langlois having neglected to come 
hither upon summons from the provost there 
according to the custome of warning persons 
from thence, a speciall warrant was granted 
from hence to warne him to appear here, 
wherein he hath altogether fayled, notwithstanding 
that the appealant hath appeared 
with a certificate testifieing the signification 
thereof made unto the said Langlois the third 
day of November last" and that appellant be 
given judgment by default. In Messervy v. 
de Carteret (PC 2/51/216) a conciliar letter 
to the Royal Court stated that respondent had 
failed to appear in due time to answer, although 
it had been certified under the hand 
of the provost of the parish that respondent 
had sufficient notice of the appeal. The Council 
being ignorant whether respondent had just 
cause for non-appearance, the Royal Court was 
to give a second summons to respondent to 
appear and answer within forty days. In 
Briard v. Bonamy (PC 2/46/235) respondent 
was summoned by the King's Serjeant in 
Guernsey to enter an appearance within forty