Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1724. 433

    the proper Courts for Process to Oblige the said Poulson to Lib. X.

    make Restitution or to the Provincial Court that the Cause

    might be there heard pursuant to the said Order

      I humbly Observe to your Honours that Process of Resti

    tution Issues out of a Superior Court upon the Reversal of a

    Judgment given in an Inferior Court or out of the Inferiour

    Court where the Judgment was Rendred by Order of the

    Superiour Court that reversed it and that in the Latter in

    stance it is presupposed that the Inferior Court had Cogni

    zance of the Cause but Erroneously Rendered Iudgment for

    the Person against whom it ought to be Given which Error

    is Corrected by the Reversal and the Party Injured remedied

    by having the same Execution out of the Inferiour Court that

    he ought to have had there at first, or which is in Effect the

    same being restored to what he lost by an Erroneous Judg

    ment, but when a Judge takes upon himself to Proceed Judi

    cially in a Cause that he really had no Cognizance off (as the

    Judge of the Admiralty did in the Case of Poulson against

    Forward) gives Judgments awards Executions and by so doing

    puts it into the Power of one man to spend and waste another

    mans estate and Substance and those proceedings are de

    clared to be void and unlawful in a proper place, to apply to p. 115

    such a Judge for Restitution would be an owning by Implica

    tion at least that he had an authority that in Reality he had

    not which I humbly Conceive would have been inconsistent

    with my duty and no advantage to my Clyent whose Effects

    were so far Spent when the Order of their Excellencies the

    late Lords Justices came in, that Poulson was a Prisoner in

    Execution for debt and not worth a Groat

      And as to any proceedings in the Provincial Court in a

    matter that was begun and finally determined in the Admir

    alty Court and the Decree of the Court Reversed I'm at a

    Loss how Mr Forward could have begun or brought it in the

    Provincial Court he being Defendant and Poulson who was

    the plaintiff and might have brought it never would, All which

    I submit to your Honours Consideration and am

                        May it please your Honours

                 Your most humble and Obedient Servant

Annapolis 2d Jany 1724.          D Dulany

      And this Board are further humbly of Opinion that it Evi

    dently appears by the above answer of Daniel Dulany Esqr

    then Council for the said Mr Forward and by the said pro

    ceedings of the Governor and Council in December 1720

    that the reason why the said Order was not enforced was that

    Poulson had Obtained the Effects by Virtue of the Proceed

          28