CHANNEL ISLANDS APPEALS 
A comparison of the conciliar procedure in Channel Islands appeals with that 
employed in appeals from other jurisdictions reveals that certain differences, 
retained from the earlier period, existed in the case of Jersey and Guernsey 
appeals. The initial step in appeal from these two islands was entry of the 
appeal in the "register of council causes." e9 The appellate regulations required 
entry of the appeal within three months after sentence below, but late appeals 
were admitted upon Committee motion in cases of excusable delay, although 
costs were taxed in some instances. 70 This entry was clerical and required no 
conciliar presentation as did the initial step in non-Channel Islands appeals, 
thus possessing the advantage of independence of conciliar assembly. 71 Upon 
pray an appeal below, induce the other party 
to do the like, though aggrieved in some 
particulars by the decree, and then getting his 
appeal allowed here, bring on the cause, when 
the other party, being off guard, has omitted 
many matters, necessary to support his case, 
which he otherwise would not have done" 
(Case of Respondent, Add. MS 36,217/145). 
After several hearings the petition for leave 
to appeal was dismissed (PC 2/105/279, 479, 
504, 516). In Tabb v. Edmundson respondent 
successfully petitioned for the allowance of a 
cross-appeal from 1758 Virginia chancery decrees 
(PC 2/107/256, 310, 330). In the conciliar 
case of appellant it was alleged that 
such cross-appeal had not been offered below; 
that it would be of the most dangerous consequence 
to introduce such method of appealing, 
when it was not even suggested that 
an appeal was prayed for below; that sub 
silentio an ex parte order for admission had 
been obtained which was so irregular and 
improper that it was hoped the cross-appeal 
would be dismissed (Case of Appellant, Add. 
MS, 36,218/248). Upon hearing, the decrees 
appealed from were reversed and the crossappeal 
was dismissed (PC 2/110/172, 192). 
69 See inter alia Chamberlain v. Canivett (PC 
2/77/77); de Gruchy v. Durell (PC 2/79/ 
220); Dumaresq v. Dumaresq (PC 2/80/201); 
Pipon v. Le Febvre (PC 2/85/221); Bowden 
v. Williams (PC 2/89/279); Bonamy v. Giles 
(PC 2/92/478); De Beauvoir v. Falla (PC 
2/98/5); Le Marchant v. Perchard (PC 2/ 
105/602). 
™ See Vincent v. Le Brun (PC 2/93/155); 
Carey v. Carey, liberty reserved to respondent 
to object to appeal upon hearing as not entered 
in due time (PC 2/94/525); de Carteret v. Le 
Couteur (PC 2/96/94); Lempriere v. Hilgrove, 
consideration of costs for late entry 
reserved until hearing (PC 2/97/153); 
Lempriere v. Chastry (PC 2/97/112); de 
Carteret v. de Carteret (PC 2/97/402); Le 
Moigne v. Le Hardy, appeal received upon 
payment of costs of day (PC 2/127/449); 
Pipon v. Chevalier, received conditional upon 
presentation of the petition to be heard within 
a fortnight (PC 2/96/434). 
71 To secure entry of a Channel Islands appeal 
it was customary to present at the Council 
Office a so-called certificate of appeal written 
in French on parchment with an English translation 
attached. The translated form of a Jersey 
certificate of appeal as taken from a copy in 
PC 1/1 (3) is as follows: 
To the Remitted Causes 
[Aux Causes Remises] 
The thirteenth day of November one 
thousand seven hundred & one before 
me John Durell, gent. Deputy of the 
Hon. Edward de Carteret Esq. baily of 
the Island of Jersey assisted by Charles 
de Carteret, Esq., Philip le Geyt, Elias 
Dumaresq, Elias Montais, Charles Dumaresq, 
George de le Cloche, Rowland 
Robin, & Joshua Pipon Jurats. 
Between John de la Cloche Gent., eldest son 
& principall heire of ye late John de la Cloche, 
gent., and John Durell, gent, attorney substitute 
of Peter Durand gent, the accionning 
party in the cause of the Jane de Carteret La 
Cloche wife of the said M. Durand haveing 
right from the most honorable Lord Thomas 
Jermaine to owne the obligatarie fact of the 
said John de la Cloche senior of 13°° livers