clear space clear space clear space white space
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1670/1-1675
Volume 65, Preface 23   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
clear space clear space clear space white space
                         Introduction.               xxiii

      Joanes of St. Mary's County was “bound over by Mr. Benjamin Sallcy for a
      Rape upon Mary Smith and for speaking words agt the Lord Proprietary”
      (ibid., p. 12). Joanes and the witnesses against him appeared, and he was
      committed to the custody of the sheriff of St. Mary's County. Mr. Attorney
      General submitted an indictment against him, but when, later, the grand jury
      made return of the bill delivered them against Joanes, they had written on the
      backside of it Ignoramus, or no true bill, so the bill was thrown out.
        But Humphry was not yet out of the woods. That same day, he and Hugh
      Mackmarrough were presented by the grand jury “for that they . . . the
      26th of December last past at Lapworth in the county aforesaid did then and
      there utter certeine seditious speeches against his Lopp the Lord Propry, and
      the Governor of this Province, as by the Information of John Weare of the
      same County” (post, p. 15). He was bound over to appear at the December 19
      session of the Court, and when, at that time, no one came to prosecute him, he
      was bound over to the next court and gave bond for £20 sterling, with two
      sureties. At the April 1672 court he appeared, and when again no one came
      to prosecute him, he was acquitted by proclamation (ibid., pp. 21, 30). Hugh
      Mackmarrough does not appear again, nor does John Weare, the informer.
        On October 23, 1671, James Lewis of St. Mary's County gave bond for
      £50 with the usual two securities, to appear at the December court and answer
      charges of uttering mutinous and seditious words against the Proprietary. In
      December he appeared and was committed to the St. Mary's County sheriff.
      When he was neither indicted nor presented, the Court continued him in the
      custody of the sheriff but admitted him to bail. He had to give a recognizance
      of £100 with three securities instead of the usual two. On October I, 1672,
      “The Court being informed that the said Lewis . . . had severall times since
      broke the said Recognizance It is ordered that . . . [his securities] be sum
      oned . . . to show cause why the said Recognizance should not be Estreated.”
      A few days later the grand jury presented him for having said, several times,
      that the Governor, the Chancellor and Col. William Calvert “were all Rouges
      & that ye said said Coll was a Bastard . . . and many other Scandalous words”.
      Lewis plead not guilty but the jury “upon their oathes doe say that they finde
      the said James Lewis guilty” as charged. “Whereupon it is redered by ye
      Court that yC said James Lewis receive imediately thirty nine Lashes on ye
      bare back and that” he remain in the custody of the sheriff until he found
      securities for his good behavior who were acceptable to two justices of the
      Court (post, pp. 17, 21, 39). Presumably the sentence was carried out. Al
      though Lewis had enough goods and chattels, lands and tenements to stand a
      recognizance of £100, he is nowhere described as a gentleman or even a planter,
      and it must be that he was neither, since lashes were given only to persons of
      the servant class (Archives, I, p. 184).
        Mrs. Frances Roades (Rhoads, Rhodes, etc.), wife of Abraham, had been
      bound over to appear in court on February 11, 1672 “for scandalous words
      agt the Right honoble the Lord Proprietary” came into court “and the Cort upon
      Examination of the matter found that the sd Abraham was in some pt guilty
      as well as his wife, and because their was no Grand Jury this Cort" (post,

clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1670/1-1675
Volume 65, Preface 23   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  

This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.

Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!

An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact

©Copyright  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives