xxii          Letter of Transmittal.






             suit in Maryland against Anderson and Bedlow, and obtained a writ of arrest of
             the ship. Bedlow, who had chartered the ship, filed a bond, and was temporarily
             given possession of the ship. At a later session the litigants appeared in court but
             Hudson failed to establish his title. The case finally came before a jury, which
             brought in a split verdict. The court then decided that Hudson had established a
             good title (pages 288-289, 321, 323, 372, 511, 552-553). The case was appealed
             to the General Assembly by Anderson and Bedlow through their attorneys,
             Thomas Notley and John Morecroft, and was heard before the Upper House,
             April 26, 1666. Hudson not making an appearance, action was postponed until
             the next session (Arch. Md. II; 33). As there is no later mention of the case in
             the Assembly Proceeding it would appear that Hudson lost by default or settled
             out of court.
               A case involving the violation of the Navigation Act by the sioop Red
             Sterne, came up before the court at its December, 1664, session. It was
             charged that the owner, Jacob Bakker of New York, was not an English citizen,
             and therefore not free to trade under the terms of the Act. He was given six
             months by the court to justify his action in doing so. New York had been very
             recently taken from the Dutch, and had been only four months under English
             rule, and the nationality of its Dutch citizens was the question at issue. Bakker
             and his partner produced in court a lengthy letter from Colonel Richard Nicolls,
             the English governor of New York, which clearly set forth the legal status of the
             Dutch, who, he declared, had become English subjects as a result of their sur
             render to the English forces. Nicolls insisted that Bakker had the rights of an
             English subject, and incidentally pointed out to the Maryland authorities that
             they themselves had not observed certain features of the Navigation Act, and that
             he could make it rather unpleasant for them if he were so disposed. The court
             referred Bakker's case to a jury, which found him not guilty of violating the
             Act (pages 323, 324, 388, 391-393). The following case also refers to
             trade with the Dutch. At a December, 1664, session of the court, informa
             tion was filed by the Attorney-General against six prominent Marylanders,
             who had incurred obligations due to the Burgomasters of Amsterdam,
             based on what was claimed to be unlawful trade with the Dutch. The question
             at issue was whether these debts were forfeitable under the Navigation Act.
             The transactions related to the smuggling of tobacco over the Elk River route
             4o Delaware, when that territory was still in the possession of the Dutch, and
             before it had been taken over by the English. Alexander d'Hinoyossa, the
             late Dutch governor of the Delaware River settlements, at this time living in
             Maryland, although he soon after returned to Holland, figures prominently in
             the case. Those charged with thus trading illegally were Augustine Herman,
             Samuel Goldsmith, Henry Stockett, Charles James, Richard Bennett and
             Nathaniel Utie. The case does not appear to have been pressed (pages 299,
             341-342).

               Difficulties between shippers and shipmasters not infrequently came before
             the court. John Foxhall had a dispute with a Bristol shipmaster named Absalom
             Covent. He claimed the ownership of certain tobacco but Covent refused to
             recognize him as the consignee. To add insult to injury the shipmaster took