Early Maryland County Courts.         li

      sent to his violent advances. It would be interesting to learn whence the follow
      ing lines which he quoted came (p. 319):

                  She lives for ever in eternall shame
                  that lives to see the death of her good name

      And again (p. 320):

                  that though the speach bee near so fals an ill
                  that one belives it not an other will
                  And so thear malice very seldome fayles
                  but one way or an other still prevayles

      In a previous volume of the Archives the editor has given a short sketch of
      Lumbrozo, showing how, charged in February, 1658/9, with blasphemy in
      questioning the divinity of Christ, he had escaped trial by Richard Cromwell's
      proclamation of amnesty, issued in 1658, just before his case was about to come
      up (Arch. Md. xli, 203, 258-259). At the March, 1662/3, session of the
      Charles County Court Lumbrozo sued his hired servants, John Goold and his
      wife Marjorie, for defamation of character, but after evidence was presented
      that the doctor had sought by offers of land and hogs to have Marjorie “to be
      his whore “, and that he had actually used force in an attempt “to fulfill his
      lust “, the suit was withdrawn, and “the plaintiff withdrew himself “(p. 355).
      It was not long afterward that at the July, 1663, court Lumbrozo and another
      maidservant, Elizabeth Wild, were presented for having brought on an abor
      tion upon her, she at the same time charging him with being responsible for her
      pregnancy (pp. 387-391). The details are especially sordid, and both were
      presented by a Charles County jury, to be tried at the Provincial Court, as has
      already been referred to in discussing the use of juries in Maryland (p. xxii).
      The case did not come up, however, before the Provincial Court, doubtless
      because Lumbrozo promptly married Elizabeth, thus disqualifying the prin
      cipal witness against him, and so saving his skin; and a few months later,
      November 16, 1663, Lumbrozo and a wife Elizabeth jointly deeded land
      (p. 497). At the November, 1665, court the doctor, now calling himself John
      Lumbrozo, was presented to the court by a planter, Thomas Ailcoks, as a thief,
      in having received the goods stolen by Indians from the Allcoks house, when
      his wife and children were murdered by them, and the doctor was placed in
      the sheriff's hands for trial at the next Provincial Court (pp. 609, 616). The
      outcome is not known, as the proceedings of the higher court for this period
      have not yet been printed. Lumbrozo's frequent suits for the payment of pro
      fessional fees due him, and his employment as attorney even after these malo
      dorous episodes, show that he must have been a man of considerable ability.
      Of interest also is a list of claims against the estate of Daniel Gordian, filed
      April 30, 1664, which shows that Mrs. Gordian, a patient of Dr. Lumbrozo,
      had lived with her maid Lettice at the doctor's place for twelve months, while
      she was under treatment and that a cabin had been built for their occupancy
     (p. 503).