Introduction.                 xv




       Carvile and John Rousby Attornyes of this court That the Petitioners being
       absent at the Sitting of this Court On Saturday last the Court proceeded to
       thc calling thc Docquctt and for want of thc Petitioners attendance the Court
       did nonsuite and give judgment against severall of the Petitioners Clyents who
       are thereby very much dampnified. The Petitioners Pray that in regard they
       did not heare the last beateing of the Drumm being a windy morning and that
       it was not a wilful default of the Petitioners they humbly pray that the said
       causes may be reteined and their Clyents not Suffer for this default.” What
       the Court did about the cases does not appear, but it was “Ordered by the
       Court here that the Petitioners be fined to his Lopp the Lord Proprietary the
       sume of foure hundred pounds of tobacco apeice.” (post, pp. 383-384) Yet
       the Court did, upon occasion, take judicial notice of the weather. It declared
       that it was sensible that the tediousness of the December weather was the
       reason that auditors had not done their work (post, pp. 63, 99), or that the
       sheriff of Talbot County had not served his writs as by law he ought, and the
       cases were delayed until next Court (ibid., p. 440). John Rousby, one of the
       busiest and brashest attornies before the Court was fined one hundred pounds
       of tobacco for violation of a Court order “that the Attornyes Speake regularly
       and when the Court think fitt under fine of One hundred pounds of tobacco
       each tyme (ibid., p. 585).
         One case of what must be disbarment occurs in these proceedings, though, as
       often happens, the word is not used. “Thomas Knighton one of the Attorneys
       of this Court being accused for falsefying a writ out of this Cort after it was
       under the lesser seale of this Province & signed by the Clerke, and the said
       Knighton humbly Confessing such his misdemeanor submitted himself to the
       mercy of the Court, who this day ordered that the said Knighton be Discharged
       of his place of an Attorney in this Court and never more psume to practise in
       this Province, but impose no fine upon him quia pauper.” (post, p. 50)
         In criminal cases it was all but indispensable to have grand jury action. Such
       a jury, consisting of from sixteen to twenty men “sworn according to the Tenor
       of the oath usually administered to Grand Jurors." (post, pp. 2, 8), considered
       indictments delivered them by the Attorney General and returned either a true
       bill or an ignoramus. Upon a true bill, the accused was tried, by a petty jury.
       The jury might be called a trial jury, a petty jury or a jury of life and death.
       Upon an ignoramus, the accused. was discharged by the Court, either with or
       without an acquittal by proclamation (p. 32). The grand jury could, of course,
       present persons, without any action by the Attorney General, and it did so,
       for substantially the same crimes as those coming up by indictment. Once a
       true bill or a presentment had been voted by the grand jury, there was a trial,
       usually by a jury of twelve. In criminal cases the case against the accused was
       set forth by the Court itself, with testimony being heard, and with the prisoner
       speaking in his own behalf. He —or she— was told that he had a right to chal
       lenge any of the talesmen, but there were no challenges used in any of these
       criminal cases, and but one —for cause— in a civil case (post, 147-148). It was
       also possible to have a non-jury trial, but this, too, was not done in any of the
       criminal cases here.