Volume 57, Preface 39 View pdf image (33K) |
Introduction. xxxix conferred upon the Lord Proprietary in the Maryland charter were extraor- dinarily broad and were those of a medieval bishop of Durham in his palatinate. As equity in England was defined as the King's conscience, in Maryland equity represented the Lord Proprietary's conscience. Although the case was entered on the docket of the Court of Chancery in 1671, it does not seem to have ever come to actual trial in this court. Here John Morecroft with Richard Langhorne are entered as representing Scar- burgh as attorneys, although of course the latter did not appear in person in the Maryland court (Arch. Md. LI, 99). It appears on the Chancery docket as the case of Henry Scarburgh against Richard Perry and Mary Bateman, the latter the daughter and heir of John and Mary Bateman, deceased. After numerous postponements over a period of three years it was obviously settled out of court, for a deed dated November 8, 1674, was recorded in the Court of Chancery in 1675, which unquestionably marks its final settlement. This deed from Mary Bateman, spinster now of London, and Henry Scarburgh of North Waltham, England, conveyed to Richard Perry of Patuxent, Maryland, merchant, Resurrection Manor in Maryland, together with the servants, negroes, merchandise, stock, household goods, and other personal property upon it. The consideration named was £100 paid by Perry to Mary Bateman, and £412 paid by him to Scarburgh. Whether Scarburgh was paid anything more in satisfaction of his claims against the estate of John Bateman, the record. does not disclose. Thus seems to end the long drawn-out Bateman case (Arch. Md. LI, 446-450, passim). Another dispute which dragged its weary way for some ten years through the courts, first in the Provincial Court, then in the Court of Chancery, and which finally was heard on appeal in the Upper House of the Assembly, was one marked by suits and counter-suits between John BaIley and Raymond Staple- fort. The original case as summarized in the preceding volume of Provincial Court records first came before that court in 1664. These two men were joint owners of a vessel, the barque Providence of Patuxent. While Bailey was out of the Province, Staplefort removed from his partner's room a large quantity of merchandise, to a part of which Bailey claimed full ownership, and a half interest in the remainder as owned jointly with Staplefort. When the case was first tried before a jury, Staple fort was cleared (Arch. Md. XLIX, xxiii). Later at the April, 1666, session of the court, another suit was instituted by Bailey against Staplefort to recover his share of the value of the goods im- ported by them in the Providence, which goods Staplefort was declared to have fraudulently borne away when he broke into Bailey's chamber and opened three great packs owned jointly by them. Bailey also sued to recover his share of the plantation, owned jointly with Staplefort, and the cattle upon it, and also for his share of the barque Providence. The court appointed auditors to bring in a detailed account, and after a lengthy hearing, judgment was given in favor of Bailey for 6000 pounds of tobacco and costs. This suit is an interesting one because it gives a picture of the business methods of provincial merchants trading in their own ships (pp. 36-40). But the diffi- culties between Bailey and Staplefort did not end here. The dispute later |
||||
Volume 57, Preface 39 View pdf image (33K) |
Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!
|
An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact
mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.