Introduction.               xxxix




      action was taken against the sheriff, it was the coroner and not the sheriff
      who summoned the jury (ibid., p. 212). The other cases involving bills of
      exchange are not essentially different from Litchington v. Maitby. Pleas for
      an account were also likely to concern the affairs of persons outside the
      Province. Henry Phipps, administrator of Edward Maynard, mariner, de
      ceased, summoned Thomas Marsh to an accounting of the time he was re
      ceiver of Maynard's tobacco, and the Court ordered Marsh to make the desired
      account. Marsh, like Maltby, was committed to the custody of his sheriff, of
      Anne Arundel County. Auditors were appointed by the Court, and, upon their
      long, detailed report, it was decided that Phipps had been damaged by Marsh's
      failure and delay, and a writ of inquiry of damages was granted him (ibid.,
      pp. 193-202). After several postponements, it was decided on October 13, 1674,
      that the mariner's administrator recover 7266 pounds of tobacco debt, 1000
      pounds damages, and 2284 pounds costs and charges (ibid., p. 312).

                     GUARDIANS AND ORPHANS

        The troubles of guardians and orphans were considered by this highest court
      in the Province, though, to be sure, they generally came up in the county
      courts (see Archives LIII and LIV), or in the Court of Chancery. That court
      was composed of the same judges as those of the Provincial Court, with the
      Chancellor presiding, but there is at this time little mention of chancery or of
      cases in chancery. On October 16, 1674, the record states that Chancellor
      Philip Calvert, Thomas Taillor, Thomas Truman and Baker Brooke “continue
      the causes in Chancery untill the eighth day of December next.” and “The
      Provinciall Court adjourned untill the same day.” (post, p. 370). No idea is
      given of the cases considered or of the dispositions made of them. It would seem
      that some of the cases heard. and decided by Lhe Provincial Cuuit might better
      have been heard in the Chancery Court, which was separated from the Pro
      vincial Court in 1669.
        The affairs of orphans and guardians do not bulk large in the Court pro
      ceedings at this time. Elizabeth Russell, daughter of Richard Russell, deceased
      was said by the neighborhood to have been “inhumanely beaten and abused”
      and therefore she came into court. When the Court saw the marks, they said
      she should be for a year in the keeping of Love Daniel, wife of Constant or
      Constantine Daniel, and that her stepfather pay Mrs. Daniel for her care. At
      that time Sarah Coleman also chose Mrs. Daniel for her guardian (post, p. 90).
      A little later William Wright, son of William Wright of Popler Hill, chose
      Thomas Bennet to be his guardian, and the Court approved (ibid., p. 95).
      Andrew Norwood came into court on February 10, 1673/4, and asked the
      justices to help him get his proper share of his father's estate. His father,
      John Norwood, had died, leaving seven children, leaving also a considerable
      estate. His mother, Ann Norwood got out letters of administration on her
      husband's estate and afterwards married James Boyd “a young man”. The
      mother and her young husband refused to give Andrew his inheritance, and
      even turned him out of doors. Andrew, who did not want to go to law with