One or more answers might be ordered or forthcoming depending upon division 
of opinion in the insular judicial body. 84 To expedite such answer it 
might be necessary to limit the period for return or to threaten an award of 
costs. 85 Upon return of the answer the earlier practice permitted doleant a 
replication. Then a hearing would be held before the Committee, in some cases 
ex parte, in some contested. Upon the hearing the Committee would advise 
allowance of the appeal upon the usual security of or dismissal of the 
doleance** In the former case the appeal was entered in the normal manner 
following issuance of the admitting Order in Council and prosecuted as if 
entered in the first instance. 87 An effort was made to have doleance procedure 
conform to regular appellate procedure, but conciliar approbation was lacking.BB 
Apparently the doleance hearing did not enter into the merits of a 
sent it to the Jersey bailiff and jurats to answer 
(PC 2/82/180). 
84 See In re Tapin (PC 2/85/432); In re 
Falle (PC 2/90/233, 236); In re Dumaresq 
(PC 2/92/272); In re Pallott (PC 2/93/165, 
181). For specimen Guernsey answers see 
Dobree v. Gosselin, 1702 (SP 47/2/45-46); 
Priaulx v. de Lisle (Rawlinson MS, A 270/ 
10-11). 
85 In re Priaulx, 40 days after service to 
answer (PC 2/88/482, 485); In re Major, 
3 weeks (PC 2/116/337); In re Falle, the 
Royal Court was to answer before the end 
of the next Hilary Term or in default thereof 
the Committee would award doleant damages 
(PC 2/85/464); In re Pipon, return answer 
on first boat returning to England (PC 2/ 
84/36). An answer might also be returned to 
the Royal Court as too general and the Court 
ordered to answer specifically the doleance 
allegations (PC 2/88/365). 
86 In re Fauvell (PC 2/80/378); In re 
Dumaresq (PC 2/80/68); In re Lempriere, 
no reply (PC 2/89/80); In re Priaulx (PC 
2/87/296). In the case In re Brock, in which 
an appeal was allowed ex parte, respondent 
tried unsuccessfully to be heard against the 
admitting Order in Council (PC 2/90/397). 
87 See Fauvell v. Lempriere (PC 2/80/395; 
PC 2/81/278, 365, 373, 385, 391); de la 
Garde v. Pallot (PC 2/82/227, PC 2/ 
83/7, 49); Rex v. Tapin (PC 2/86/7, 19, 
J35); Priaulx v. Beauvoir (PC 2/91/495-96, 
520; PC 2/93/152, 218, 257, 507, 512). The 
appeal might be admitted upon condition of 
prosecution within a specified time; see Touzel 
v. Le Hardy, one month (PC 2/101/211, 
219); Lempriere v. Hilgrove (PC 2/101/3 95, 
430). But cj. Rex v. Tapin, where it appears 
that a year and a day was the period for entry 
of an appeal allowed by the Council and 
presentation of a petition for a hearing (PC 
2/86/136). In a rare instance doleance procedure 
was shortened by admission of an appeal 
without sending for a Royal Court 
answer. In In re Major (PC 2/116/178, 186, 
214) the appeal was admitted, but the doleance 
was still sent to die Royal Court of Guernsey 
to answer (PC 2/116/187); upon failure to 
reply, a peremptory order to answer issued 
(PC 2/116/337). 
88 In the case In re Le Messurier the Committee 
admitted an appeal without sending the 
doleance to the Royal Court to answer, but 
it advised that no summons for the future 
issue upon any doleance which should be 
brought from Guernsey until the parties had 
first made application to the Council Board 
(PC 2/82/504, 510, 518). On the doleance 
in the case In re Dupuy there is a Committee 
entry that respondent be summoned as in the 
case of appeals, but a marginal notation is to 
the effect that "this report did not pass, for 
another issued of 13 July 1704." The superseding 
order makes no mention of a summons 
for respondent (PC 2/80/137, 145). In the 
case In re de Gruchy the Committee apparently 
intended to reverse a sentence below upon 
mere doleance procedure (PC 2/82/55, 210, 
220), but upon objection by Charles de 
Carteret against such reversal (PC i/2[B]) 
the Committee merely advised that an appeal 
be admitted (PC 2/82/221). There was conversely 
some attempt to apply doleance procedure 
to appeals. In Messervy v. Dumaresq 
it was petitioned that before hearing the ap-