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