Introduction.           xxiii

                          GRAND JURY

       A grand fury is mentioned at only six of the fifty-five recorded sessions of
     the court held during our period (pp. 62, 144, 356, 372, 439, 518). Under an
     act of Assembly passed in 1666, the county courts were required twice a year to
     have impanelled by the sheriff a grand jury to inquire into offenses against all
     the good laws of the Province (Arch. Md. II; 141-142). There is no reason
     to believe that the Charles County Court, or the sheriff, failed to comply with
     this act, as there were penalties provided for failure to do so. The fact that at
     only six of these sessions, over a nine year period, is there any notation that a
     grand jury had met, is certainly due to the carelessness and indifference of the
     clerk of the court to make such an entry in the minutes, for even had the grand
     jury met only twice a year, which is most unlikely, there must have been at
     least eighteen grand juries which met during this nine year period. The law
     does not stipulate the number of jurymen which constituted a grand jury.
     As a matter of fact, the number seemed to vary in an arbitrary way. At the
     January, 1671/2, and November, 1672, sessions, a grand jury of fifteen mem-
     bers was impanelled, while at the March, 1671/2, session, the grand jury was
     composed of nineteen members (pp. 356, 372, 439). At the November, 1668,
     court, four persons “summoned by the sheriff to fill the grand jury and not
     appearing” were fined (p. 144).
       Not a single one of the criminal cases is recorded in which all the picturesque
     and often sordid details of the evidence are presented, as will be found in the
     earlier county court records printed in Volumes LIII and LIV of the Archives,
     as well as in the Provincial Court records. In some instances, however, details
     are found in civil suits for damages as the result of assaults, or for slanderous
     speeches charging hog-stealing, theft, etc. Occasionally the court required an
     individual to give bond that he keep the peace, or that he would prosecute some
     one accused of hog-stealing (p. 311).

                         HOG STEALING

       Hog-stealing as a crime has been discussed by the editor at length in a previ-
     ous volume of the Archives, so need not be enlarged upon here (Arch. Md.
     LII; xxxi). Hog-stealing, by which was usually meant the killing of ear-
     marked swine running at large which belonged to others, was looked on as a
     most serious offense. Only first offenders were ordinarily tried in the county
     courts; more flagrant or repeated offenders were sent up to the Provincial
     Court, the law providing even the death penalty for the third offense. Hog-
     stealing was not only a crime against the dignity of the Lord Proprietary and
     one to be severely punished, but, as has been said before, was a cause for a
     civil suit for damages against the offender by the owner of the hogs; and a
     reward to the informer was also allowed. These cases usually first came before
     the grand jury on information by a constable, this being followed by indict-
     ment by the grand jury. The trial that followed was usually before a petit jury,
     but might be tried before the court, as the accused elected.