Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1753-1761. 275

and thereby instead of making it bear Date in 1753. the Time
when the Certificate was wrote, giving it a Date in 1752:
The Effect of this antedating would have been (had it not
been discovered) that the Account would have been legal Evi-
dence, by appearing to have been proved in Time, tho' in
Fact had the Certificate been dated upon the Day and Year
when given it could not have been given in Evidence.

2^dly It appeared in Evidence that Col: Bayard certified as
a Magistrate the Acknowledgment of two Deeds taken to
himself in which he was a Party, and that the same were
recorded by his Order, but it did not appear to us that the
Effect mentioned in the Remonstrance did actually happen.
3^dly The Charge of Col: Bayards' having upon a summary
Trial ordered a Freeman to be whip'd for a Felony appeared
to us to be without Foundation.
4^thly It appeared in Evidence that Col: Bayard being de-
sirous to be appointed Guardian to an Orphan, sollicited a
Magistrate in a private Way for his Countenance when the
Matter should come before him judicially, it further ap-
peared by the Testimony of one Witness that after the
Court was adjourned and Proclamation had been made
thereof, and when all the other Magistrates had left the

Lib. J. R.
& U. S.

Court, except Col^s Veazey and Bayard, or Col^s Veazey Bay-
ard and one other Magistrate, the Deputy Clerk was ordered
by the said Magistrates to make an Entry upon the Proceed-
ings of the Court that Col: Bayard was appointed Guardian
to the Orphan, this was also proved by the Clerk of the
County Court, except as to the Circumstance of the Adjourn-
ments having been first proclaimed of which he was doubtful
it also appeared by the Clerks' Proceedings that the Adjourn-
ment had been entered before the Appointment and that it
had been afterwards struck out, and again entred after the
Appointment; it further appeared that upon Complaint being
made of this Proceeding by a Magistrate of the Court to Col :
Veazey he promised to speak to Col. Bayard to have it recti-
fied and that the Entry of the Appointment was afterwards
struck out accordingly by the private Order of the said Col^s
Veazey and Bayard.
We beg Leave to observe to your Excellency that the Con-
duct of the Magistrates in ordering the Entry of the Appoint-
ment to be struck out privately leaves no Room to doubt
but that their Behaviour had been before irregular, or if
there could be supposed to be a proper Authority to make the
Entry of the Appointment at first, Col^s Veazey and Bayard
had no Authority to order it afterwards to be struck out
in a private Manner.

p. 237