Another indication of the functional attitude of the Board can be seen in cases involving exhaustion of remedies below. In one case the Council refused to accept jurisdiction where definitive sentence had not been given below, 224 but in other cases it showed no reticence in issuing orders in a cause still pending before the inferior court. 225 It even sometimes intervened in a suit below and had the proceedings continued before a differently constituted body. 226 On the other hand, it occasionally ordered the lower court to proceed to sentence, on the theory that the aggrieved party could appeal as usual. 227 Jurisdiction in an undecided cause might be conferred upon the Board by an island court. 228 As the above instances indicate, the jurisdictional views of the Council were inconsistent. Statements were made that the jurisdiction of the Board was limited to appeals or doleances in causes which had been before the insular courts. 229 In practice, jurisdiction was accepted in complaints when there had been no judicial proceedings in the islands. 230 In addition, there was the less forceful intervention of the Council in island affairs by means of precatory as they should appoint, Judge Marten of the High Court of Admiralty was ordered to be joined with the King's Advocate to rehear the cause and report to the Board. In Dumaresq v. de Carteret (ibid., 1615-16, 254) respondent, after a conciliar letter issued in the cause, informed the Board that by reason of royal service in Jersey he could not attend a previous hearing in England. The cause was referred to the island judiciary for re-examination with orders to forbear executing the earlier letter. 224 In a dispute between John Herault and John Durell the King's Advocate was of the opinion that the cause should not be heard at die Board until definitive sentence was given in Jersey. The Board thereupon admonished the Royal Court not to receive any frivolous allegations, but did not restrain it from hearing any new matter conducive to reaching the truth; the aggrieved party was to be allowed an appeal, if desired ( PC 2/39/281). For earlier proceedings in the cause see PC 2/38/501; see also APC, Dom., 1626, 433. 225 Upon the petition of one Peter Clungeon it was ordered that the Guernsey Royal Court proceed to sentence in a cause with one Dobree without requiring production of an account book which was in England, or else that Dobree or his agent come to England to view the book (PC 2/46/47). Later, upon Dobree's petition that there might be a larger sum due him upon his account with Clungeon than was sued for, it was ordered that the Royal Court, before giving sentence, examine the accounts and cause them to be examined and audited by two merchants or attorneys, and afterwards settle such order as was agreeable to justice (PC 2/49/408). 226 See PC 2/43/600, 2 " pc 2/51/75. 22S PC 2/40/188. 229 One Messervy complained that his tutor, John de Carteret, had refused to make an accounting and petitioned that he be compelled to do so. The King's Advocate advised that it was improper for the Board to make any order therein, since the matter had never depended in the Jersey courts and therefore was not liable to cognizance of the Board either by way of appeal or of doleance. The matter could only be recommended to the court below for a speedy hearing (PC 2/48/ 155). Simon Effart, of Guernsey, complained of some "hard dealings" used toward his father by Thomas de Lisle and prayed relief. "Although the case seemes to deserve commiseration (if the information be true), nevertheless because this Board doth not take notice of suites in law concerning that isle but onely in cases where there is an appeale, we have not thought fit to order any thing in favour of the peticioner but to referre him back unto the ordinarie course of justice in that isle" (APC, Dom., 1619-21, 296). 230 See APC, Dom., 1623-25, 304.