xxiv                 Introduction.

        of habeas corpus cum causa detentioni, before trial and before issue joined; (3)
        by appeals to the Provincial Court for a new trial after judgment below; (4)
        by a writ of error and supersedeas after judgment on specified rulings of the
        court below.
         Of the 24 appeals entered during this period, 20 are simply styled “appeals”,
        3 were brought up by writs of error, and 1 by writ of certiorari. Excluding 3
        cases which appear as unfinished when this record closes, we find that the
        county courts were sustained in 9 cases and reversed in 7; appeals dismissed
        in 2 cases; and 3 cases were remanded to the county court for retrial. It is to
        be noted that 13 out of the total of 24 cases were appeals from the Calvert
        County court.
         Two cases which were adjudged in the Provincial Court were appealed to
        the Upper House of Assembly, sitting as an appellate court and composed
        of the same men who had heard the cases below. One of these was the long
        drawn-out suit of Bailey vs. Staplefort discussed elsewhere in this introduction
        (pp. xxxix-xl); Arch. Md. II; 362-368, 379-380). It is to be noted that the
        Upper House in this case reversed the decision of the Provincial Court. The
        other case appealed to the Upper House, Hinchman vs. Manning, had first been
        appealed from the Calvert County court to the Provincial Court where the
        decision below had been sustained. The proceedings of the Upper House for
        April, 1668/9, show that this case, which had been brought up by writ of error,
        was marked “retraxit” by Daniel Jenifer, attorney for the plaintiff, who had
        twice entered an appeal (Arch. Md. II; 161, 162).
         In these cases appealed from the county courts to the Provincial Court there
        seems to have been a full retrial before the higher court, with the filing of the
        records in the court below and the hearing of testimony, the trial being before
        the court or by jury, as the litigants desired. In one instance the court divided,
        three to two, in its decision. The question involved in this case was as to
        whether or not the suit was “a personal action” depending between the parties.
        The Governor, the Chancellor, and Justice Evans ruled that it was, Justices
        White and Lloyd dissented (pp. 299, 321). In another case appeal was brought
        by the defendant on the ground that the jury ought not to have given its verdict
        because he appealed before it had gone out. The court denied the appeal on
        the ground that the record did not show this (p. 148). None of the 24 cases
        which came up on appeal from the lower courts seem to have been of especial
        interest. As far as can be told by the fragmentary record in some of the
        cases, with the exception of two which involved indentured servants, all the
        remaining cases were suits for debt, and as the county courts only had juris-
        diction in cases involving less than 3000 pounds of tobacco, most of these
        suits were for small amounts. It is not clear from the court entry why on
        December 13, 1669, “A Certiorari should be Granted to John Richardson to
        transmit the records” of his appeal to the Provincial Court (p. 565), nor is the
        character of the case revealed, although it was unquestionably a civil suit. It is
        to be noted, however, that on this same day Governor Calvert had granted
        a pardon to Richardson, who shortly before had been found guilty of killing
        his wife by misadventure (pp. 599-600).