xiv                  Introduction.

            by the act of Assembly duly signed by the Governor (Archives, II, p. 467).
            Since neither of the Carletons had paid the sum, he sued Arthur, son and execu-
            tor, for the usual double amount, 8oo pounds of tobacco. Carleton secured
            a delay until February 12, 1675/6, but when that day arrived, he “came not
            but made default”. Whereupon the Court granted that Attorney Ridgely re-
            cover the 400 pounds damage and 528 pounds more for costs of suit. In Febru-
            ary 1674/5, Margaret Penny asked Ridgely to “be her Attorny at Law to man-
            age any couse she should imploy him in . . . [and] did faithfully promise
            that for his cane & paines in & about her said cause or causes she . . . would
            pay unto the said Robert his just ffees”. Ridgely said that at her order he sued
            out of the Provincial Count four writs and that he prosecuted them. For four
            writs he asked 16oo pounds of tobacco according to the pertinent act of As-
            sembly, but neither Mrs. Penry non her executor had paid him, “though often
            thereto required”. So he sued the executor, John Inland, and when the case
            came to trial, Inland said nothing in bar of his action. Accordingly, the Court
            granted, April 21, 1677, that Ridgely recover the 16oo pounds of tobacco dam-
            ages and 536 pounds costs of suit (post, 461-462).
             In one case an attorney seems to have joined with a husband to take from
            a wife the right she had in real property, property which she had brought into
            the marriage. The husband, by threats and persuasions, induced his wife to
            join him to convey land to attorney Charles Boteler for a valuable considera-
            tion, and immediately Boteler re-conveyed it to the husband alone (post,
            Xix, 471).

             There were special liberties and privileges attached to the Provincial Court,
            but it has not been possible, up to now, to find out just what they were. Almost
            without exception, when an attorney or a justice, on an official of the Count
            came before it, the case was said to be “according to the libentyes and privi-
            ledges &c”. Most of the cases so designated concerned attorneys, who were,
            of course, officers of the Court, but the clerk and the crier made the same claim,
            and even a justice of the Count, being the defendant, appeared according to the
            customs and privileges (post, 457-458). And he came not but made default.
            The only feature common to all these cases is that whenever the plea was made,
            the panty making it appeared in proper person, and not by attorney.
             Today the sheriff of a county is, in law, distinctly subordinate to other county
            officers, but three hundred years ago, with many of the settlers only lately
            out of England, he was much more than the court's servant. Indeed, in two
            cases here, the sheriff was a member of the Court. As in England, he had to
            be of large estate. In many cases he held other important offices. Benjamin
            Rozer, sheriff of Charles County, was also a member of the Council and of
            the Upper House, justice of the Provincial Court and attorney before it, and
            receiver general of the Proprietary's revenues. Col. Vincent Lowe, sheriff of
            Talbot County, was an attorney before the Court, and, until March 1676,
            attorney general of the Province. Of course, he was also brother-in-law of the
            Proprietary. There had long been complaint from the people against the
            sheriffs, and some attempts had been made to curb their powers. In 1666 an
            act of Assembly had provided that no sheriff could plead as an attorney in