xviii          Early Maryland County Courts.

          pounds of tobacco for every hour of absence. It further ruled that after
          adjournment the orders of the court be reviewed by the members of the bench
          before they were permanently entered in the record by the clerk (Arch. Md.
          liv, 652).
            Judgments of the county court were determined by a majority vote, indi
          vidual justices occasionally recording dissent from the majority opinion. In
          the event of a tie, the opinion held by the presiding justice or “judge “ was
          decisive. In the case of the runaway servant, Sarah Tayler, tried in 1659 in
          Kent County, Mr. Henry Morgan, one of the justices, “doth Judge tht the
          sd Sarah shall be whipt “, but in view of the thrashing her master and mistress
          had already given her “the rest of the Court doth Judge that her Former
          stripes were suffitient” (Arch. Md. liv, 168-169). In the case of Capt. Thomas
          Bradnox, a justice of Kent, tried December 1659 before his own court for
          drunkenness and profanity, the court divided as to the amount of his fine,
          the vote of the presiding justice, Robert Vaughan, being decisive (Arch. Md.
          liv, 178). In a civil case before this same court in 1668, two of the justices
          dissented from the majority. (Arch. Md. liv, 243).
            The time of meeting of the courts in the several counties was fixed by suc
          cessive acts of the Assembly, passed in 1640, 1642, 1647/8, 1669, and 1674.
          These sessions were staggered so that all the county courts might not be in
          session at the same time. In general it may be said that there were five or
          six sessions a year, of which one was to be an “Orphans' Court “. (Arch.
          Md. i, 149, 185, 232; ii, 222, 397-398). Under the act of 1674 special sessions
          might also be held if due notice were given as provided for in the act.
            The courts were usually held at the house of one of the justices or of some
          other county official, or occasionally at an inn or ordinary. The Kent County
          levy, entered at the March 1657 court session, shows an item of 1200 pounds of
          tobacco paid to “Mr. Hinson for 3 years keeping Court at his house (Arch.
          Md. liv, 104). These records show, however, that a court house was in use in
          Kent in 1659, and that one was ordered to be built in Somerset in 1667 (Arch.
          Md. liv, 152, 154, 652). But we find in 1671 that the Kent court is again
          being held in private houses. It is possible that the court house was being
          used as the jail several times mentioned in the court records of this time
          (Arch. Md. liv, 306, 308, 321).
            That grand juries, petit juries, coroner's juries and juries of women were
          all made use of is shown by the records of the county courts. An act passed
          by the Assembly in 1638/9, which failed to become a law, as did all acts passed
          at that session, because of a dispute between the Governor and the Assembly in
          regard to the respective right of each to initiate legislation, provided in crimi
          nal cases for presentment by the “grand enquest “, to be composed of at least
          twelve jurymen (Arch. Md. i, 49). The first mention of a grand jury in Mary
          land is to be found in the Proceedings of the Provincial Court for February 12,
          1637/8, when “the Sheriff returned for the grand enquest twenty foure free
          men” whose names are given, and who brought in a true bill against certain
          followers of Claiborne (Arch. Md. iv, 21-22). Grand juries impannelled in
          the Provincial Court during the forties, however, seem invariably to have had