Introduction.            xxxv

    are to be found in two depositions recorded when the suit for damages was
    heard (pp. 427, 429).
     At the February, 1667, court Christopher Andrews, late of Patuxent in
    Calvert County, laborer, was presented for an assault upon John Edes, a
    servant of John Grammer of Patuxent. Although it was declared that Andrews
    had not only given Edes a good beating, but had removed from his feet by
    force a pair of shoes valued at three shillings, the grand jury failed to indict,
    endorsing on the presentment “Ignoramus”. The chief interest of the record
    is that it shows that the assault took place at the schoolhouse of John Grammer
    upon the Island Creek in Patuxent River (pp. 151-152).
     No less a personage than Justinian Gerard, gentleman, of Bramley, St.
    Mary's County, the son of Thomas Gerard, lord of St. Clement's Manor, was
    presented at the April, 1670, court for an assault upon one Thomas Casey of
    Bramley. Gerard “Submitts himself e to the judgement of the Court, whereupon
    he was fined by the Court to his LOpps to the summe three shillings and foure
    pence” (p. 617).
     At the February, 1670, court John Wilson by his attorney John Morecroft
    sued Abraham Hughes, mariner, late of Patuxent in Calvert County, repre-
    sented by Robert Carville, his attorney, for £200 sterling damages. No details
    of the assault are given. The jury determined the damages at £16 sterling, and
    costs at 1754 pounds of tobacco, The sheriff who was unable to find Hughes
    was ordered to bring him before the court at its next session (pp. 525, 526).
     A number of cases of theft, or “suspicion of theft”, were brought before the
    court during this period, but none of them are of especial interest. There is a
    suspicion in several of these cases that the charges were brought from malice. In
    two instances it was charged that tobacco paid for rent or fees due to the Pro-
    prietary and in the custody of sheriffs, had been tampered with or stolen. One
    of these cases will be referred to elsewhere (p. lxi). In no instance, even for
    hogstealing, was there a conviction for theft during this entire five-year period.
     Daniel Jenifer, one of the attorneys of the Provincial Court, as well as its
    former clerk and now an inn-keeper of St. Mary's City, was himself presented
    at the February, 1669/70, Court for “having broke all and every the matters
    and things to him enjoyned as an Inholder”, as defined in the Act of April,
    1668, but the Court declared the presentment insufficient and that “he be quitt”
    of it (pp. 597, 615).
     The indictment of John Craycraft and Thomas Boyce for a minor offense,
    “fighting and quarrelling last night” on December 17, 1669, at the time of a
    session of the Provincial Court, was doubtless looked upon as contempt of
    court. The presentment, however, was quashed (p. 614).
     It is not clear why the Provincial Court assumed jurisdiction in the case thus
    described in the presentment: “Elizabeth Howard alias the Fire-ship at the
    house of John Nevil on the clifts in Calvert County for that the said Elizbeth
    Howard is by Comön fame reputed to be a Comön pocky Whore”. Elizabeth
    was presented at the December, 1669, court, but when brought before the
    April, 1670, court no person appearing to prosecute her, she went quit of the
    presentment (pp. 597, 616-617). The description and nickname of the lady