Some confusion exists as to the extent to which conditions regulating appeals by way of doleance differed from the ordinary appeal and doleance regulations. In most appeals by way of doleance it is noted in the Guernsey Royal Court records that the appellant "a consigne au greffe cent livres tournois suivant l'ordonnance." 9T Presumably the ordinance intended was that of April 21, 1623. 98 But mere doleances have the same notation in some cases," although in many cases there is no notation of a doleance at all in the Guernsey Royal Court records. In other cases security similar to that taken in the case of regular appeals was entered into by appellants by way of doleance} 00 This was by virtue of the June 27, 1627, Order in Council. 101 Or both security devices might be employed in a single cause. 102 A litigant might be denied an appeal below both in the common form and by way of doleance 103 so that an appeal against the Royal Court, but was judicially admitted, engrossed under the hands o£ the magistrates, sealed, and entered in the public records upon deposit of security for prosecution thereof, so essentially it was an appeal under another name, wherefore, the Committee without violating their constitutions, might have awarded as of course a summons to bring up the defendant to be heard on the merits. The requiring an answer from the Royal Court was an indulgence which it was submitted had been forfeited by contempt in refusing to answer. An appeal and summons in the usual form was thereupon prayed for, but without success (PC 1/3 [13]). 97 Poulett v. Richardson (MS. Jugements, ordonnances, et ordres du Conseil [Avril 1685 a Vevrier 1716}, 49); Dobree v. Lihou (ibid., 130); Broyer v. Thomes (ibid., 133); Dobree v. Morell (ibid., 55); Le Messurier v. Lihou (ibid., 51); Fiott v. Martin (ibid. [Novembre 1745 a Avril 1757], 2 -3)- 98 1 Recueil d'ordonnances de la cour royale de Vile de Guernesey, 146-47. 99 In re le Messurier (PC 2/78/20, 31, 81, 184, 188; MS Jugements, ordonnances et ordres du Conseil [Avril 168; a Fevrier 1716] , 61); In re de Saumarez (PC 2/83/100, 121, 332, 34°; MS Jugements ut supra, 153); In re Naftell (PC 254, 360-61; MS Jugements ut supra, 175); In re Priaulx (PC 2/86/154, 159; PC 2/87/271, 273; MS Jugements ut supra, [Mars 1716 a Decembre 1726], 3-5); In re Falla (PC 2/90/233, 236; PC 2/91/63; MS Jugements ut supra [Janvier 1726 a Mai 1736], 3-4)- l°°De Beauvoir v. Le Marchant (MS Jugements, ordonnances et ordres du Conseil [Mars 1716 a Decembre 1726], 18). "Mr. Daniel de Beauvoir a ete receu et admis a se porter pour doleant au roy et aux seigneurs de son tres Honorable Conseil de la sentence de la cour en son acte de l'onze du courant donee contre lui en faveur de Messieur Josue et Eleazar Le Marchant et Daniel de Lisle. Et a presente pour caution (suivant a l'ordre de sa Majeste du vingt et sept de juin 1627) Messieurs Abraham le Messurier et Fala lesquels se sont obliges et un seul pour le tout que le dit de Beauvoir suivra sa doleance dans an et jour et qu'il en attendra le jugement et le repondra de tous coutages, damages, interets, et depens qui pouront ensuivra sans l'obligation de tous leurs liens et pareillement le dit de Beauvoir a promis indemnier ses dites cautions sans la meme obligation." To similar effect, see Carey v. de Lisle (ibid. [Avril 168$ a Vevrier 1716], 42); Dobree v. Falla (ibid. [Mars 1716 a Decembre 1726], 28-29). Yet the first and last causes were treated by die Council Board as doleances; see supra n. 96. Cf. the treatment of Le Bier v. Le Messurier (ibid., 39) at the Council Board (PC 2/86/443, 447; PC 2/87/ 231, 235). 101 APC, Bom., 1627, 370-71. See supra, p. 32. 102 Le Bier v. Le Messurier (MS Jugements, ordonnances et ordres du Conseil [Mars 1716 a Decembre 1726], 39). 103 See Bowden v. Williams (PC 2/91/307). In the Guernsey Royal Court records it is stated in a June 9, 1730, entry that Bowden "a ete deboute d'appeller a sa Majeste et ses seigneurs . . . et sur la proposition du dit Bowden de se porter pour doleant a sa dit