3. that this Court further should have distinguished McMahon by reason of the fact that the Superior Number in Jersey possessed both a civil and a criminal jurisdiction, whereas the ordinary court in Guernsey possessed a limited and, to use the phrase employed in the judgment of this Court in Century, "dwindling jurisdiction, in criminal matters;

4. that the sole test of jurisdiction therefore was whether the Cour des Jugements et Records would have had jurisdiction before its replacement by the Court of Appeal on 4th June 1964 (the date when the Appeal Law of 1961 came into force), this being dependent itself on the jurisdiction of the ordinary Court from which the appeal lay;

5. that the ordinary court having unlimited jurisdiction in respect of (inter alia) cases in respect of which no specific sum was claimed, had jurisdiction in respect of such a matter as the present;

6. that although there was no system of administrative law in 1964, the provisions of the Appeal Law of 1961 as to jurisdiction by reference to the Cour des Jugements et Records (and incidentally therefore by reference to the ordinary Court from which appeal lay) was not to be construed as preserving a "museum piece" without regard to the later development of the civil law in Guernsey, and that the Deputy Bailiff in his decision at first instance in Century erred in holding that there was no place for a system of administrative law in this relatively small community, and furthermore that the Procureur was not immune from suit in such instance;