xvi                  Introduction.

            In civil cases, too, the jury figured largely. In fact, one of the main duties
          of the sheriff of St. Mary's was the summonsing of “twelve &c by whom &c
          who neither &c to recognize &c because as well &c”. This formula was never
          written out in full; sometimes it was even further abbreviated to “twelve &c”.
          The jury was called to try cases, although many times when the trial opened,
          the defendant failed to appear, or, appearing, offered no defense; thus he suf
          fered judgment by default and no jury was needed. Juries were also called
          to appraise the value of land (post, p. 668), to decide on its partition (ibid.,
          p. 410), or to direct the carrying out of a survey (ibid., 355-356, 466). In half
          a dozen cases, juries were called to ascertain the amount of damages suffered,
          in cases where the Court had decided that damages were due, but had not been
          able to say how much they should be (ibid., pp. 202, 239, 312, 331-332, 552-
          553). Jurymen and talesmen and sheriffs, like attorneys, often felt the dis
          pleasure of the Court in a substantial way. A dozen times, men called for
          jury service and not appearing, were fined 500 pounds of tobacco (post, i8, 21,
          24, 25, 29, 31, 32, 40, 45, 141, 225, 246, 314). Another juryman, who dis
          closed the verdict prematurely also paid his coo pounds (ibid., 440). A witness
          who did not appear at the proper time escaped the usual fine only by making it
          appear that he had not been properly summoned (post, pp. 203-204). Sheriffs
          were regularly amerced, or fined, 40 shillings when someone for whom they
          had returned a cepi (I took him) failed to come up to court. The Governor
          acting as Governor and not as Chief Justice could and did sometimes remit
          these fines (ibid., 33, 225).
            There was no insistence, apparently, on getting high-quality jurymen. On
          December 19, 1671, Joshua Guibert, presented “for marking John Blomfeilds
          Cattle with the said Guiberts marke appeared by Robert Carvile his Attorney”,
          stood on his traverse and had the presentment against him quashed (post,
          p. 19). Yet, two days later, Guibert was chosen as a juror in a murder trial,
          and he served without being challenged (ibid., pp. 19-20). William Whittle,
          fined ioo pounds of tobacco for being drunk in court (ibid., p. 29), had served
          on juries and served again later (ibid., p. 159). Another talesman, appearing
          in Court too drunk to serve, was set in the stocks for half an hour (ibid., p. so).
          Another absent talesman, fined the usual 500 pounds, had his fine remitted when
          he proved he was in jail at the time and could not come (ibid., p. 225).


                                APPEALS


            In the period covered by the present volume there are not many cases heard
          by the Provincial Court on appeal or writ of error from county courts, and
          none of them were important. Two or three cases came up on writ of error,
          with no indication of the county in which they had arisen. They were only
          “upon Errors Continued untill the next Provincial Cort" (post, p. 108) and
          when at that next court they were considered again “These two Causes upon
          writs of Error are by Consent of Attorneys of both sides continued untill the
          next Cort. (ibid., p. 168). After that, no more is heard of them here.
            But a writ of error, a common law process, examines the law only and