Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1694 97. 317

   to the Govern' & Councill I answer that in my Opinion there Lib. H. D.

   is no one parity between an Appeal from the provinciall Court

   to the Governr & Councill & from the Commissary Generall

   to a Court of Delegates for that the former is most strict!y

   tyed vp to the Errors arising out of the Record, without con

   sideration at all of the merit of the matter in question, whereas

   vpon the latter they are not only Errors in meere point of

   Law & arising out of the Record that are to be called in

   question, but likewise the merit of the whole matter wherein

   & wherevpon the Sentence of the Commissary was given.

      As to the third Quere, whether a Court of Delegates

   vpon Appeal from the Commissary on a sentence by him given

   may affirm one part of the Sentence & disallow of another.

   I am of Opinion that where the sentence consists of severall

   parts differing one from another in point of substance as for

   Example it may be for Revoking of former Letters of Admrcon

   & of the disallowance of severall Articles of an Account p. 231

   exhibited into the Commissaries Office by the former Admr &

   of paying Costs which may perhaps be exorbitant that then

   & in such case vpon an Appeal before a Court of Delegates,

   the said Court may seperate such part of the Sentence as they

   think just from such part thereof as they in their Judgmts &

   according to their skill in the Laws think vnjust, and give

   their Sentence vpon the whole matter

     Which may it please your Exncy considering the shortness

   of the time & want of books is as much as at present can be

   presumed to be Offered by

                  Yor Exncies most humble

                  & most obedient Servant

                                  Charles Carroll

   Mr Phil In obedience to your Exncies Commands in Councill

   Clarkes     .       .

   Opinion concerning the Jurisdiction of a Court of Delegates,

   touching the and whether they are not obliged to affirm or

          Reverse the Sentence of the Comissary brought

   Delegates. before them or whether they can Reverse one part

   & affirm the other or whether they can make a Judgmt of their

   own.

     In answer thereto I do humbly conceive that whatsoever

   doth not properly lye afore the Commissary doth not lye afore

   them for tho a Court of Delegates is a Superiour Court yet

   cannot take cognizance of any matter that doth not lye in the

   Commissaries Court and that as to their Jurisdiction it is the

   same and no difference, on!y that a Court of Delegates is a

   Superiour Court.

     That as to the Commissaries Court I do humbly conceive it

   to be a mixt Court and that the Commissary is obliged to