Early Maryland County Courts.       xxxi


        Hog-stealing, as it was called, which usually meant the killing of ear marked
      swine running at large in the forest, was a sport indulged in only too frequently,
      not only by the servant class but by planters as well. That it was all too com
      mon is shown by the laws of increasing severity to stop it, which were passed
      by successive Assemblies. The law recognized it not only as a crime, but as
      a cause of action for damages against the offender, and rewarded the informer.
      Acts were passed in 1649, 1662, 1666 and 1671 designed to put a stop to it.
      The act of 1649 provided for the payment of twice the value of the animal to
      the owner, of 200 pounds of tobacco to the informer, and a fine of 300 pounds
      of tobacco to the Lord Proprietary, and in the case of unmarked swine killed
      on the Proprietary's land, a somewhat smaller fine and informer's fee. (Arch.
      Md. i, 251). The act of 1662 for the second offence added the penalty of a
      letter “ H “ branded on the shoulder of the culprit (Arch. Md. i, 455). In the
      1666 act, for the first offence triple damages were to be awarded to the owner,
      and the culprit was to spend four hours in the pillory before the Provincial
      Court and to have both ears cropped; for the second offence treble damages and
      an “H” branded on the forehead; and for the third offence he was to be
      adjudged a felon without benefit of clergy, which of course meant the death
      penalty. The act further provided that any person reputed to be a common
      hog-stealer should not hunt with guns and dogs on another's land (Arch. Md. ii,
      140). The act of 1671 further strengthened previous laws (Arch. Md. ii,
      277). Some of the cases of hog-stealing noted in these county records rep
      resented small damages, or were first offences not involving such mutilations as
      branding or ear-cropping, and therefore came before the county courts, and did
      not reach the Provincial Court, which alone could handle more serious cases.
      Two cases which came before the Charles County Court are, however, entered
      in great detail by the clerk, and are of considerable human interest. One of these
      which was tried in this court involved no less a personage than Thomas Baker,
      one of the justices of the court, who was forced off the bench (pp. 234-239).
      Another case, that of Thomas Standbridge, charged in January 1664/5 with
      “the killing of hogs contrary to the rule and dignity of the Lord Proprie
      tary “, who was tried before the Charles County Court and confessed his mis-
      doings, has already been referred to (p. xxi), as has the case of James Lee who
      charged four of his neighbors with hog-stealing (p. xxi). At the August, 1665,
      court, Mr Seth Foster, a justice of Talbot County, sued a man for defama
      tion who had called him a hog-stealer, but the evidence pointed to the de
      fendant as being a chronic offender, so he was obliged publically in open
      court to apologize to the justice (Arch. Md. liv, 383-384). The case against
      Henry Lillie “convicted” in the Charles County Court, Oct. 23, 1660, was
      ordered up to the Provincial Court for trial, but Lillie died before his case could
      be heard (pp. 91, 93-94). The leniency usually shown by juries indicates that
      there must have been a good deal of sympathy for the poor man who occasion
      ally secured a piece of fresh pork for himself and his family by this question
      able means. Indians also occasionally appear as offenders.
        Disputes between masters and servants, both those with and those without
      indentures, bearing on the time of expiration of the term of servitude, espe