by way of doleance might be petitioned for at the Council Board. 104 In the 
case of Jersey, appeals by way of doleance were inconsequential. Such procedure 
was available, 105 but in the few cases in which it was used the appeal 
was treated by the Council as an ordinary doleance} 00 
The Channel Islands procedural pattern in the matter of cross-appeals and 
revivals was substantially similar to that on colonial appeals. Cross-appeals, 
entered in but few causes, traversed the same course as regular appeals. 107 
Abated appeals were revived both by means of conciliar petition and Committee 
motion. 108 Upon revival it was usually ordered that parties or respondents 
attend the Board to be heard within forty days of service. 109 Where delay 
transpired in revival of an appeal, such revival might be ordered upon respondent's 
alternative motion for dismissal for nonprosecution or for revival. 110 Of 
the extensive use by the Council in earlier periods of the respective Royal 
Courts and of insular commissions but faint traces remain during the 
eighteenth century. In rare instances the Committee might order the court 
below to transmit a true state of a case upon hearing the parties to the appeal IXI 
or the state of the insular law 112 or to try an issue of fact. 113 Such procedure, 
however, was anomalous and not to be included in a handbook of conciliar 
practice. 
Majeste, il a ete ordone que les Ordres du 
Conseil au sujet des doleances paroistrant." 
On June 13 it is noted that Bowden "a ete 
debouter de se porter pour doleant a sa Majeste." 
(MS ]ugements, ordonnances et ordres 
du Conseil [Janvier 172.6 a Mai 1736], 57-58). 
Cf. the allegations of Daniel Tapin (PC 2/ 
88/206, 209). In Priaulx v. de Lisle it was 
complained that the Royal Court had refused 
to admit a doleance (PC 2/78/81-83). Presumably 
an appeal by way of doleance is 
meant, since it is difficult to see how a doleance 
could be denied. 
104 See In re Le Messurier (PC 2/78/20); In re 
Dobree (PC 2/78/287); In re Fashion (PC 
2/83/186). 
105 In the 1733 doleance of Dumaresq denial 
of leave to appeal either in the ordinary way 
or by way of doleance was complained of 
(PC 2/92/115). See also In re Le Hardy (PC 
2/79/408); In re Dumaresq (PC 2/79/409); 
In re de la Garde (PC 2/82/210). 
106 In re Le Hardy (PC 2/79/408, 410; PC 
2/80/68, 70); In re Dumaresq (PC 2/79/409, 
410; PC 2/80/68, 70); In re de la Garde 
(PC 2/81/365, 373; PC 2/82/210, 227, 542). 
The same 100 livres tournois deposit was necessary 
in Jersey appeals by way of doleance as 
in Guernsey (In re le Lacheur, PC 2/81/545). 
107 See Merveilleux v. Le Marchant (PC 2/ 
86/84, 85, 146, 155, 158, 429, 433); Le Geyt 
v. Magon (PC 2/91/240, 242, 253, 262, 
324-25, 329, 330-31, 333, 334, 337); Fiott v. 
Le Marchant (PC 2/95/242, 451; PC 2/96/ 
204, 381; PC 2/97/111, 133). 
ioBpi ne ii v . L e Brun (PC 2/87/381); Le 
Hardy v. Guerdain (PC 2/92/103); Naftel 
v. Falla (PC 2/93/52, 181); Naftel v. Tupper 
(PC 2/93/219, 224); Pipon v. de Carteret 
(PC 2/95/118); Mauger v. Le Pelley (PC 2/ 
97/410; PC 2/101/186, 211). 
109 Bandinel v. Bandinel (PC 2/105/53); 
Pinell v. Le Brun (PC 2/87/381). 
110 See Fashion v. Monamy (PC 2/84/74)- 
111 De la Marche v. Perchard (PC 2/78/235). 
112 Ibid. Cf. Priaulx v. Andros, where a commission 
was ordered to issue to ascertain the 
Guernsey practice as to the validity of a court 
held without summoning the Lieutenant 
Bailiff (PC 2/79/455); Dobree v. Girard (PC 
2/87/491); Oliver v. Andros (PC 2/91/613, 
614) which concerned a dispute between 
Guernsey and Alderney courts as to original 
jurisdiction over criminal causes arising in 
Alderney. 
113 Le Marquand v. Dauverne (PC 2/90/340).