Introduction.


          xxiv

          pp. 58-59) both were committed to the custody of the sheriff of St. Mary's
          until the next court. If, however they offered bail of which the court approved,
          they could go, and they did offer such bail. Rhoads also acknowledged a recog
          nizance for £100 with two sureties, on condition that they would both appear
          at the next court, and that they would behave themselves until then. Frances
          appears no more in this record, but her husband served on juries, until April,
          1674, at least.
            There was one other case at this time in which the charge of uttering sedi
          tious words was made, but it never came to trial. Stephen Whitman, arrested
          on that charge, was admitted to bail of one person only, “whereby the said
          Whitman is now escaped & fled this Province & so hath Escaped Justice.”
          (post, p. 36).
            In November, 1675 there arose a case involving the alleged uttering of
          scandalous words against a sheriff. Here, however, the sheriff did not bring
          criminal action against the persons who had, he said, maligned him. Instead, he
          brought civil suit for damages to his reputation, alleging trespass on the case.
          For a discussion of the case and of the resulting decision, see page 607 post.
            In a region as new as the Province of Maryland, there was bound to be a
          great lack of English coins, and a need for establishing the value of foreign
          coins. English coins were, of course, not foreign ones. As early as 1671, an
          act of Assembly was passed (Archives II, pp. 286-287) declaring the value of
          all those in common use and providing penalties for anyone refusing to take
          them at their legal rate. Richard Moy, of St. Mary's City, innholder, was
          presented by the grand jury on October 1, 1672, for refusing to take a Spanish
          piece of eight at its established value of 6s. sterling. When his case came to
          trial on December 10, 1672, his attorney, Richard Carvile, appeared for him,
          and succeeded in having the presentment quashed for its insufficiency “and
          so the said Moy went thereof without day.” (post, pp. 38, 44). This case is
          one of the first in the Province in which a person accused of crime had an
          attorney.
            The events centring around Capt. Thomas Jones of Somerset County pro
          vide much work for the Court and the attornies, and much color and excite
          ment for the laymen. Of course, be it remembered, with a name like Thomas
          Jones, it is sometimes not easy to identify the individual with certainty. On
          October 1, 1672, it was ordered by the Court that Thomas Jones of Somerset
          “(being accused for severall thinges done beyond his Commission) should have
          subpena's for his witnesses.” (post, p. 35). On April 20, 1672, Thomas Jones
          of St. Mary's County, merchant, had been commissioned sole Indian trader
          within the Province, and had also been given the right to seize anyone else
          attempting to trade (Archives, V, pp. 106-107). In June of that year he was
          commissioned captain of the military forces of the recently-created Worcester
          County (ibid., pp. 110-111). That same summer, Jones, who was sheriff of
          Somerset County, too, was commissioned collector of Somerset, as his prede
          cessor had been. He was to enter and clear all undecked vessels entering Somer
          set, and to take the necessary bonds (ibid., 111-112). He was also one of the
          justices for Worcester County. Other men than the justices of the Provincial
          Court held a multiplicity of offices.