xx                   Introduction.

         King Cannot be Molested nor Sued for his informacon be it right or wrong”.
         The court not deeming the answer sufficient, overruled the demurrer and post-
         poned further action until the next court to give Staple fort an opportunity to
         prove his charges, and ordered him to be placed in the custody of the sheriff
         until he could give security for his appearance at that time. At the June
         court, however, Staplefort openly acknowledged that he had falsely and
         maliciously scandalized the plaintiff and declared “that lie was sorry for the
         same and asked forgiveness” of the plaintiff, and the court “thereupon thought
         fitt to binde the deft to his good behaviour, for that the plt is one of his
         lOps Commrs of Calvert County” (pp. 65-67, 110, 111). Sprigg was awarded
         4,500 pounds of tobacco as damages (pp. 113, 114).
          Cases in which Staplefort figured seemed destined to lead to trouble. At
         the June, 1668, court Henry Coursey, a justice of that body, represented to
         the court that when a suit between Cuthbert Witham of London and Jonathan
         Sibrey of Wye River, Talbot County, was being heard, Witham had menda-
         ciously and basely circulated reports that he had heard Coursey had taken
         10,000 pounds of tobacco from Sibrey to look out for his business against
         Witham. Coursey asked an inquiry by the court, not only because his own
         honor, but that of the court, was at stake, and hoped that if he were found
         guilty the severest punishments that the law allowed would be meted out
         to him, but if not guilty, he might have such reparations as the law afforded.
         In open court Witham then “nominated” Raymond Staplefort as the author
         of the accusation. When Staplefort denied the authorship, but refused to
         divulge the author, the court ordered that unless he disclosed his authority, he
         himself would be adjudged the inventor of it, and committed him to the custody
         of the sheriff until he revealed the author. Two days after the court adjourned
         Staplefort filed a deposition to the effect that he had heard a certain Anthony
         Calloway say that he did suppose Mr. Henry Coursey had 10,000 pounds of
         tobacco for assisting Sibrey in his business against Witham (pp. 318-319).
         Here the matter seems to have been dropped. Why Jonathan Sibrey should
         have been brought before the June, 1668, court by “a writ of Contempt of
         Obedience” is not disclosed by the record, although this may well have been
         in connection with the preceding case; but “after much debate” he was
         adjudged not guilty and ordered to swear to the truth of his answer in open
         court (p. 298).
          The attorneys of the Provincial Court were as jealous of their honor and
         dignity as the justices themselves. John Morecroft, who had but recently been
         sworn in as an attorney, sued his former indentured servant William Champ
         for defamation at the October, 1666, court. Champ, now a freeman, had
         been employed by Morecroft, who practiced both as a physician and a lawyer,
         “in the Art & Mistery of Physick as his servant by Indenture”. Champ, it
         appeared, had called his former master “a Cheating old Knave”, and, repre-
         sented by William Calvert and Daniel Jenifer, his attorneys, did not retract
         what he had said, but denied that the words were actionable, as they were
         spoken before Morecroft had been sworn as attorney, and the court so held
         (pp. 119, 122, 126). That Jenifer also had to defend his honor at the same