summons, appellant petitioned the Council Board for reversal; 134 conversely 
in case of nonprosecution respondent petitioned for dismissal of the appeal. 135 
In the normal procedural course, after respondent entered an appearance, 
appellant petitioned the Council Board to be heard on his appeal. This petition 
was then referred to the Committee for Jersey and Guernsey to hear and report 
thereon. After such Committee hearing and report an Order in Council was 
issued based upon it. 136 Under this committee system the position formerly 
held by the legal advisers became minor. 137 The delegation of the appellate 
function to insular commissioners was no longer accepted practice, 138 although 
recourse was still had to the island courts for information as to the 
state of the insular law. 139 
v. Bouillon (PC 2/55/366; PC 2/56/96); 
Renouf v. Gibault (PC 2/58/15, 19); cf. 
Gosselin v. de Saumarez (PC 2/65/450; PC 
2/66/17) where respondent complained that 
appellant had summoned said respondent to 
appear before entry of the appeal and without 
any order for such summons from the Clerk 
of the Council as was usual in like cases; that 
petitioner came over to enter an appearance 
upon such summons and was refused it. The 
Council awarded respondent costs for 
loss sustained by such irregular proceedings. 
By Order in Council, Jersey appeals were to 
be prosecuted between the beginning of Easter 
Term and the end of Midsummer Term 
(supra, pp. 32-33). Therefore, it was conceived 
necessary that part at least of the forty days 
to appear fall within the said time limits; see 
Dumaresq v. Le Hardy (PC 2/60/119, 164). 
But this temporal limitation for prosecution 
appears to have been extended to Guernsey 
also by conciliar usage; see the 1682 summons 
in Monamy v. Dobree from Guernsey (PC 
2/69/436) and the recital in a July 6, 1697, 
summons (PC 2/77/36). But this regulation 
was by no means strictly observed. For Jersey 
violations thereof see PC 2/56/110, 119; PC 
2/58/182; PC 2/60/205, 207; PC 2/75/368. 
For Guernsey, see PC 2/70/199; PC 2/71/124. 
But cf. Ahier v. Mallet, where when the parties 
appeared after the usual time for prosecuting 
appeals had lapsed, the hearing was put off 
until the next year (PC 2/72/716). 
134 De la Cloche v. Le Hardy (PC 2/69/61); 
Dobree v. le Gentilhomme (PC 2/71/288). 
The Council at times exhibited a lenient 
attitude in giving summoned persons time to 
appear before it; see du Hamel v. de Guidici 
(PC 2/61/59, 106. 125). 
135 Le Montais v. Mauger (PC 2/65/135); 
de Carteret v. Le Hardy (PC 2/71/285); 
Richardson v. Le Febrve (PC 2/71/490). 
136 p or representative cases see de Jersey v. 
Bonamy (PC 2/69/584, 674, 675, 679); 
Nicolle v. Gosselin (PC 2/70/136, 184, 187, 
199); Vaudin v. Fautrart (PC 2/70/296; PC 
2/71/90, 93, 124, 127); de Carteret v. de 
Carteret (PC 2/74/33, I 9I> 207, 225, 230); 
Le Moigne v. Valpy (PC 2/74/216, 389, 407; 
PC 2/75/151, 157); Seale v. Mauger (PC 
2/74/92; PC 2/75/92, 136, 180, 183). But cf. 
the seeming Committee finality in Journeaux v. 
Dumaresq (PC 2/71/119, 170) where the 
reference terms were "to give such order 
therein, as their Lordships shall thinke fit." 
As to the general reduction to formality of 
Council Board functions see 2 Turner, The 
Privy Council of England, 104, 109. 
137 For attendance of the King's Advocate at a 
Committee hearing see Fiot v. Gosselin (PC 
2/69/328). In Briard v. le Brocq the appeal 
was referred to counsel "to state the cause" 
(PC 2/70/214). For reference of non-appellate 
matters to legal advisers see PC 2/73/400; PC 
2/74/i94- 
138 See the statement of the Attorney General 
and the Advocate General in Andros v. 
Priaulx (PC 2/61/272) that "it is not fitt any 
person should have the liberty to fly from 
a court first and afterwards to returne thither 
againe at his pleasure, drawing causes and 
persons to and fro to their grievance, cost, and 
vexation, and as to this cause in particular it 
being legally brought by the said Andros 
before his Majesty and the Board it ought 
to receive its determination here, and not to 
be remitted to the said island." 
139 See Gosselin v. de Quitteville (PC 2/69/ 
683, PC 2/70/206, 214) where the Committee 
report advised reversal, if appellant could es-