444 Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1694 97.

     Lib. H. D.     tion of the said information, the Matter of ifact (as it seemeth

           to me) is determined and the Verdict of the Jury is to stand

           in full force, and the Judges could do no otherwise than Credit

           the Verdict & Give Judgmt according to it; for the Judges are

           not to take notice, as I do humbly conceive, whether the Bond

           was good or not, being a thing meerly collaterall & was not

           any part of the Record which was before them; But if the Kings

           Counsell or they that were of Counsell with the Informer

           would not Demurr they have tacitly confessed the bond given

           in Evidence to be good, and the Judges are to take it to be so,

           vnless the Kings Counsell or the Counsell for the informer

           shew the contrary vpon their Demurrer.

             5: In all cases where the King is party ‘tis a Rule in Law that

           the King being Caput Reipublicae & Juris, Requires tht Justice

           should be done between him & his people with all the favour

           that may be towards his people Vide Doc. & Stud. Chap. 48.

             This I do humbly Offer to your Exncy as my present Opinion

           in the principal Case & begg leave to Subscribe my self

           June  1696.     May it please your Exncy

                           Yor Exncies most humble Servt

                                        R Gouldesborough

                       June 22th 1696.

             I do concur with the above Opinion with this further Addi

           tion, that I humbly conceive, that at. the Tryall it was not

       p. 358  Debated whether the Deft after the Boad in question was past

           shipped Tobacco on Board or not for that I presume was admit

           ted, but what did weigh with the Jury to find the Deft not

           guilty was a permit of Trade vnder the hand & Seal of the

           Collector which was produced to the Jury as Evidence for the

           Defts Clearing. And if the same permit was not sufficient

           Evidence in Law to indemnify the Deft against the breach of

           the Law the Counsell for the plaintiffes ought to have demur

           red therevnto, as in the third Article above is mentioned; so

           that the Counsell for the plaintiffe having waved that advant

           age & the permit not being contradicted the Jury (in my Opin

           ion) might well find the Deft not guilty without the danger of

           an Attaint, if any Attaint in this Case would lye, which most

           of the Books agree cannot.

             Shep Epit. 121. 122. The King oran Informercannot have

           this Writ ffitz. Na. Br. Verb. Attaint says the same, Only I

           find in Cro: 1. part Abrid No 731. The Queen & Ingorsells

           It was the Opinion of the Justices that an Attaint lyes where

           a Verdict passeth against the Queen, vpon an Information.

           And furthermore if the sd permit did dispose to the breach of