308    Charles County Court Proceedings, 1662-1666.

             Liber B Whearupon the Plantiue alleageth that the last night hee was ad
                   mitted of as an Atturney and that no law can enforce a man to sware
                   against himself for hee was subpened after hee was admitted an
                   Atturney and of the truth hearof hee desireth the iury to informe
                   them selues of the board
                     And the defendant desireth that his witneses might bee sworne
                   upon interrogatiues to them by him proposed which was granted
                     And unto Samuell Price and John Neads hee proposeth wheather
                   hee did not giue order to the Sheriffe to subpene them yee or nay
                   and wheather thay wear not subpened yea or nay who sware thay
                   wear subpened at his suit and further sayeth not:
                     And to Andrew Watson and John Cherman hee proposeth
                   wheather hee did not giue order to the Sheriffe to subpene MT
                   Francis Batchelor yea or nay at that time in the same suit when
                   hee ordered the sheriffe to subpene them who doe declare upon oath
                   that hee did as fast as hee coold giue order unto him after that hee
                   had ordered him to subpene them and further sayeth not:
                     Whearupon the Jury was impannelled and the Precedent buisnes
                   deliuered unto them the Petition excepted

                        The Names of the Jurymen are as followeth
                   Mr John Alexander                Francis Thorington    Gus Glouer
                   William Price   James Lee        William Aliffe
                   Daniell Johnson John Browne      John Neuill
                   Samuell dobson  Gils Tomkins     William Cary

                     Who beeing sworne and thear forman Chose braught in this thear
                   Verdit thay all Concenting but befor thay went out on the buisnes
                   The defendant deliuered this ensuing declaration in wrighting
                     Gentlemen of the Jury you are to goe according to law and Eui
                   dence and examin the Record whether Mr Batchelor was the At
                   turney last night or no and you will find that my euidence was sub
             [p. 48]    pened last night by the officer of the law who is the Sheriffe and
                   thearfor I Cannot answer nothing to my Cause if i haue not my eui
                   dence Shearch the records and you will find that thear is only the
                   generall letter of Atturney and not another deriued from it:

                        December the 18th 1662
                     In a differance depending between Edward Baker Plantiue and
                   John Meekes defendant Mr Alexander together with the Rest of the
                   Jurie find Mr Batchelor as well Atturney to day as Admitted by the
                   defendant last night finding nothing that may inualid his Atturney
                   ship the sayd Mr Batchelor beeing admitted by the Consent of the
                   board and wee further find the sayd Batchelor no lawfull Euidence
                   in the defendants Cause

                     Whearupon the Defendant sayd Now I will answer to the petition
                   which beeing read the Plantiue thearupon Craued a Jury the defen