Early Maryland County Courts.    xxi

       drames for the Jeury men” and 225 pounds for "Capt Brodnox boat prest to
       attend the Jeury men “ (Arch. Md. liv, 231). It seems certain that these were
       men of Kent who had gone across the Bay to St. Mary's City to serve on
       Provincial Court juries there. The use of a then current slang expression for a
       jury is to he found in the Charles County record in 1662 ifl a defamation case,
       when the threat was made to bring a woman accused of poisoning before “her
       twelve Godfathers” (p. 262).
         \/Vhile the accused in criminal cases in the county courts had the option of
       choosing trial by the court or by a jury, the records of these four county courts
       disclose only seven cases in which a criminal issue was involved, where a jury
       was impanelled, and it is not always very clear in this group whether the jury
       acted in the capacity of a petit jury or of a grand jury, or as a combination of
       both. To students of the law it may be of interest to discuss this group.
         Two cases came before the Charles County Court at its January 1664/5 ses
       sion which involved suspicion of hog-stealing. Both cases were brought before
       the court by William Calvert, the Attorney-General. In the first case, that
       against four men who had killed James Lee's hogs, Calvert “ enditeth “the four
         for the killing and stealing of hogs contrary to the laws of this Province “. A
       jury of twelve men was impanelled, who were ordered to inquire as to the
       guilt of the four accused. The evidence was then offered. The Attorney-
       General presented a “ manuscript “ containing “ instructions “ to the jury
       which thereupon swore to bring in a true verdict. The jury then returned the
       Attorney-General's note subscribed “ billa vera “. This same jury was then
       directed by the Attorney-General to determine the value of the hogs stolen,
       and it rendered a “verdict” placing the value of three sows at 120 pounds of
       tobacco each, and four pigs at 30 pounds each. The court thereupon ordered
       damages double the value of the swine to be paid to Lee as the owner, and
       200 pounds of tobacco to him as informer, and imposed a fine of 300 pounds of
       tobacco to be paid to the Lord Proprietary (pp. 544-549). Immediately there
       after at the same court session the Attorney-General took similar action against
       Thomas Standbridge, also accused of hog-stealing. All the steps in this trial—
       the “presentment “, the “ billa vera “, the “verdict “, damages to the owner,
       a fee to the informer, and fines to the Proprietary, are enumerated, as were
       those in the preceding trial of the four hog-stealers just narrated (pp. 55 1-553).
         John Dere was brought before the Kent County Court at the February 2,
       1656/7 and March 2, 16 56/7 sessions, under “suspicion of felony” and
       charged with hog-stealing. Various depositions were filed and his case placed
       before a jury, which brought in a “verdict” that from the evidence he was not
       guilty of the charge, although it was ordered by the court at a later session
       that he should not go into the woods unless accompanied by two honest neigh
       bors (Arch. Md. liv, 88-9, 103, 111).
         At a Kent County Court held in April 1661, two servants, John White and
       Sarah Taylor, were brought before the court charged with stealing from their
       master, Capt. Thomas Bradnox, numerous itemized articles of wearing apparel,
       including a “wastcote Laced with goold lace “. A jury of twelve was im
       panelled “to Examine the Evidence and Bringe in youre verdit whether the