xxiv       Early Maryland County Courts.


           There are a few cases in these county court records where a jury of women
          was summoned to determine [de ventre ins piciendo] the question of alleged
          pregnancy, either existing or recent. In Kent there were two such instances.
          At the June 7, 1662, court a jury of nine women proceeded “to search” a ser
          vant woman who declared she had become pregnant by a certain man on “Can
          diemuse Day last in the night “, and brought in a verdict that they could not
          decide whether or not she was pregnant, but the court took no chances and
          bound over the man by a bond of 5000 pounds of tobacco “to save the county
          harmless . . . if in case it be proved to be his” (Arch. Md. liv, 233). In the
          second case information was given to some of the justices that a woman of
          a higher social class, “Hannah Jenkins Daughter-in-Law of Mr George Harris
          of this county hath beene delivered of A man Childe “, and that there was “A
          suspition of Murther” of it. A jury of twelve women ordered “to search
          the boddy” of Hannah, gave as their verdict that she was “cleare from child
          bearing and never had A Child to the best of their knowledge “. The court
          then ordered the sheriff to clear Hannah by proclamation (Arch. Md. liv, 250).
            Appeals from the county courts to the Provincial Court during the period
          covered by these records were relatively infrequent considering the very large
          number of cases which came before these four lower courts. There were some
          thirty in all. When it is remembered, however, that the county courts only had
          original jurisdiction in civil cases involving not more than 3000 pounds of
          tobacco, or about £20, and in minor criminal cases, it is obvious that the cost
          of carrying a case up to the Provincial Court was a deterrent to an appellant,
          where the amount involved in the suit was small, or where the most frequent
          offenders in criminal cases were of the ignorant and impecunious servant class.
          Another deterrent in civil cases was the requirement that the appellant give
          bond for double or treble damages should the appeal be lost.
           Judge Carroll T. Bond in his exhaustive study of appeals in the early Mary
          land courts (Proceedings of the Maryland Court of Appeals, 1695-1729, p.
          xxix), states that before 1678 there were four methods by which cases in the
          county courts might be removed to the Provincial Court. Before trial in the
          lower court, removal might be (1) by a writ of certiorari issued by the higher
          court ordering that the record be brought before it, or (2) by writ of habeas
          corpus curn causa detentioni (or habeas corpus ad faciendum et recipiendum)
          with a statement of the cause of detention, which really meant a trial in the
          higher court. After trial and judgment in the lower court cases might be
          brought before the Provincial Court either (3) by direct appeal entered in the
          lower courts for trial anew in the high court, or (4.) by writ of error asking
          review of a specified rulings of the lower court. The records of the county court,
          however, rarely show by what route the case reached the Provincial Court,
          the entry usually simply reading that the appellant “claims an appeal “, or
           requesteth an appeal “. Occasionally the county court, itself sent the case up, as
          in an instance where an estate sued was already in the Provincial Court (p. 14).
          In two instances, on the other hand, the Provincial Court sent down cases
          entered above to the Charles County Court for a hearing, in one instance appar
          ently for final determination; and in another to report back its opinion to the