The doleance was employed extensively during this period in cases where the Royal Courts denied an appeal, although such procedure displayed no uniformity at this period. In some cases of doleance appeals were allowed upon Committee examination and report. 140 In others the Royal Courts were ordered to show cause why an appeal was denied, the order being issued either by the Committee 141 or by the Council Board itself. 142 Also upon doleance the Council Board might admit an appeal in the first instance without any preliminaries 143 From these doleance proceedings should be distinguished "appeals by way of doleance." In the latter case the procedure was the same as that upon an ordinary appeal. 144 Later, as we shall see, the term doleance becomes accepted nomenclature for all conciliar petitions for leave to appeal upon denials below from whatsoever source. The character of the hearings before the Committee for Jersey and Guernsey at this period was still upon occasions a proceeding de novo, 145 but there is also evident some opposition thereto. 148 At this time, too, the rehearing attained tablish certain legal propositions to be the custom of Guernsey. Upon presentation of supporting certificates from local counsel, respondent was ordered to make answer thereto. Finally, after hearing the parties and their counsel, the consideration of the whole matter was left to the Royal Court to examine and report whether the custom was as certified. 140 See In re Efford (PC 2/75/143, 151, 158); In re Messervy (PC 2/75/371, 373); In re le Messurier (PC 2/75/296, 412, 415). There is nothing to indicate that the Committee hearings were other than ex parte. li ' l ln re Messervy (PC 2/64/332, 391); In re Le Marchant (PC 2/70/198, 206). Cf. In re Patriarche (PC 2/75/180) where a Committee report advised that the doleance be admitted as within the time limited and that the Jersey Royal Court be ordered to transmit reasons for denial of the appeal. 142 In re Richardson (PC 2/68/180). Cf. In re Mancell, where such order was made after a preliminary reference of the question whether an appeal should be admitted to the Commissioners of the Treasury (PC 2/75/144, 159, 161, 252). 143 In re de Carteret (PC 2/69/494). 144 See Le Marchant v. de Beauvoir (PC 2/65/367, 430, 450); Gosselin v. Le Hardy (PC 2/69/543, 674, 685, where before further proceedings were had the Royal Court was ordered to certify whether appeals by way of doleance after caution given of £ 10 had ever been allowed in Guernsey for any cause under the value of 40 shillings freehold or X4O i n goods and chattels, PC 2/69/688); Gosselin v. de Saumarez (PC 2/72/665; PC 2/73/63, 141). Cf. In re Collas, where petition for leave to appeal by way of doleance resulted in a reversal upon the merits (PC 2/70/243, 250; PC 2/71/128, 170). 145 In Massey v. Guille (PC 2/71/288) the Committee advised affirmance, "no new matter being alleged before them, whereby to induce the setting aside the said sentence." In Efford v. Renouf (PC 2/75/168) an appeal was admitted at the Council Table, and the respective Royal Courts were ordered to cause such witnesses as should be produced by appellant to be examined upon oath and their depositions transmitted to the Board for its information in determining the appeal. In Valpy v. Le Moigne (PC 2/75/465, 468) the cause was remanded to the Jersey Royal Court that proof might be made of the damage sustained upon several occasions when the ship in question was alleged to have been plundered. 146 See de Carteret v. de Carteret (PC 2/74/ 225) where the Committee reported that at the hearing "defendant's counsell offered some evidence more than it appeared they did produce at the hearing in Jersey, which we though not fitt to receive," and advised that the cause be remitted to be heard again before the Royal Court. The Council ordered the Royal Court to rehear upon such evidence as had been or should be produced before the Royal Court by either party (PC 2/74/230).