xxvi                Introduction.




           he had, by virtue of his commission as sole Indian trader, seized “severall
           ffurrs and other truck” at the Whore Kill, and he added a list of the seized
           goods. Among the furs were otter, beaver, mink, wolf, coon, muskrat, and
           deer skins. Among the other truck were matchcoats and matchcoat cloth, a
           pewter pipe, some quills, some glasses, trading knives, jew's harps, bundles of
           peake both black and white, and a pound of red lead.
             Jones said also that he had seized the sloop of Richard Ackworth: he said
           Ackworth had confessed leaving the Province without permission (post, p. 41).
           But the humble petition of Richard Ackworth of Somerset County, planter,
           told a different story. Jones, he said, had come to his house while he was away,
           had asked and received some cider from Ackworth's wife, and had stayed there
           all day drinking, all day and all night. Next morning, before anyone else was
           about, Jones ransacked and took and carried away forty odd dressed deer skins,
           a hundred and eighty muskrat skins and twenty muskrat matchcoats. These
           things he put aboard Ackworth's sloop, which he sailed away to Randall Revell's
           landing, without telling any of Ackworth's household why he seized the goods
           and the vessel (ibid., p. 41).
             That same day, October 7, 1672, Jones exhibited to the Court an information
           against Peter Hance, a Dutchman, owner of the six mares which Jones had
           seized at the Whore Kill, in Worcester County. They had been taken by virtue
           of an act of Assembly against the importation of horses and mares into the
           Province (Archives, II, pp. 281, 334), and Jones prayed that they be con
           demned and awarded half to the Proprietary and half to him as informer.
           Hereupon the Court ordered that Hance appear at the next or December court
           to answer the charges. Jones referred to Hance as Peter, both in his informa
           tion to the Attorney General (post, p. 36), and now here to the Court in session
           (ibid., p. 42), but the Court, in ordering Hance to answer, spoke of “the
           said John Hance”. Such variety in the use of names is not unheard of: certainly
           Jones and the Court were talking about the same man. Subpoenas were issued
           to Henry Smith and four or five other men to testify against Jones, and a
           venire facias was issued to the coroner of Somerset to have Jones himself come
           and testify. Since Jones was sheriff of the county, any writ against him had to
           be directed to the coroner.
             The cases of the Lord Proprietary against Thomas Jones all came to trial
           on December TO, 1672, as the Court had ordered in October. John Morecroft
           appeared for Captain Jones and “was by the favour of the Court here admitted.”
           (post, p. 44). Only five of the justices were sitting, the Governor, Chancellor
           Philip Calvert, and Baker Brooke, Edward ffitzherbert and Jesse Wharton.
           Jones answered the “Rude and undigested Page” of crimes and misdemeanors
           which Smith and Jenkins had charged against him, in part by a demurrer,
           though he did not use the word. He had done the things, but by virtue of his
           trader's commission he had had a right to do them. He had, as charged, seized
           and bound all the Dutchmen he found at the Whore Kill, but with reason.
           When he sent his agent, Daniel Browne, up there, the Dutch had taken Browne
           and sent him away to New York; and Jones arrested them until he found out
           which one was responsible for carrying Browne away. As soon as he learned