The evidence indicates that hearings were not of a judicial, appellate nature 
based upon a record made in the courts below. In one case a cause was referred 
back to the islands because of the expense involved in having the parties come 
to England and produce their evidence. 218 In another case the Board was of 
the opinion that a cause could be more conveniently examined in Jersey. 219 Or 
the Council sometimes made an order for the taking of evidence in the islands 
and the return thereof to the Board. 220 Upon appeal, further evidence was 
stated to be admissible, 221 but it was also stated that such new evidence could 
not serve to justify a sentence where no evidence was produced below. 222 If a 
party was prevented from attending a hearing and presenting his evidence, a 
rehearing might be granted. 223 
days. For further mention of a forty day summons 
see de Rues v. Hues (PC 2/42/324). 
The crown law officers as referees seem also 
to have exercised a summoning power; see 
In re Blanche (APC, Dotn., 1623-25, 84). 
218 Maret v. de Carteret (PC 2/40/146). The 
appellant prayed directions in the cause, since 
the amount involved was small and since it 
would be expensive for all sides to come over 
and produce their evidence as in the ordinary 
case of an appeal. The Board found the cheapest 
and most expeditious settlement was to 
order the Royal Court to see the matter referred 
to arbitrators selected by the parries; 
otherwise, the bailiff as referee was to examine 
on oath the witnesses and proof necessary to 
be produced on both sides and then to give 
a final order so as to free the Council from 
further complaint. 
219 Le Febure v. Hamilton (PC 2/48/192). 
The King's Advocate found the cause very 
intricate and fit to be examined in the place 
itself, the burden of complaint being that 
not all of appellant's evidence was heard below. 
The Lieutenant-Governor and certain 
jurats were to re-examine the cause upon 
proofs and to compose it if possible, or otherwise 
to return the depositions taken to the 
Board and appoint a time for the parries to 
appear thereat. 
220 Neale v. Messurier (PC 2/48/620). Appellant 
did not possess copies of the acts of 
the court in the cause which allegedly had been 
denied him, nor could he afford to bring his 
witnesses over. Therefore, certain Guernsey 
officials were ordered to examine all the witnesses 
produced by appellant and return the 
examinations to the Board; the greffier was to 
attend these officials with all the acts of the 
court and provide petitioner with such copies 
as he desired. See also Oliver v. Bisson {PC 
2/48/486), where upon appellant's petition 
the Lieutenant-Governor and two others were 
directed to view such evidence and examine 
such witnesses as should be produced before 
them by both parries for the better discovery 
of the truth of the cause, then to certify to 
the Lords the true state thereof together with 
their opinions. In de Carteret v. Daverne, 
{APC, Dom., 1618-19, 274) learned counsel 
were of the opinion that a commission should 
issue to examine evidence produced by appellant 
in the island, since some of his witnesses 
were improperly excluded below; evidence 
so taken was to be returned with the 
commission's opinions thereon. 
221 In the dispute between John Herault and 
John Durell the aggrieved party was to be 
allowed an appeal from the sentence below to 
the Board, "where further proofs may be 
made and justice done with more speed, 
and expedition than hath bin in that Isle 
where both parries complain of delayes" (PC 
2/39/281). 
222 In Fiot v. Le Brocq the report of the 
King's Advocate stated that the sentence appealed 
from was grounded solely on the allegations 
of the respondent; that no evidence 
or confession supported the sentence; that 
both parties offered new evidence before him, 
which might ground a future sentence, but 
could in no way serve to justify or confirm 
the former sentence. It was therefore advised 
that the sentence be declared void which was 
ordered accordingly (PC 2/44/110). 
223 In de Carteret v. Gourfalour (APC, Dom., 
7627, 434) appellant was prevented from 
attending the hearing because of attendance 
upon crown service in Jersey. Upon petition 
for rehearing before the Lords or such others