xxviii               Introduction.

            England saying that Fulford in England was “broke.” If he was bankrupt, the
            only way to secure the seamen's wages and their food, as well as the port duties,
            was to refuse to surrender to Leach the remainder of the cargo. Accordingly
            the mate and the seamen refused to help navigate the ship or to let Peighen
            deliver the goods to Leach. When he applied to Leach to pay the wages and
            the port duties, Leach refused to do so, and he ordered Peighen to sail back
            to London empty. Again the seamen refused to sail, until their pay was secured
            them (post, 297-302; Archives, LI, p. 466ff).
             With the repeated refusal of the men to sail, legal actions were begun. Factor
            Leach drew up a protest and three bills against Captain Peighen, one in his
            own name on account of the bill of lading the Captain had unwillingly signed,
            and two in the name of Fulford, one for breach of the charter party and one
            on account of the other bill of lading (Archives, LI, p. 469). Peighen on his
            part petitioned the Proprietary that Leach be ordered to give security for the
            carrying out of the charter party out of the goods remaining on the Ruth, and
            the hearing was set for Tuesday, May 23, 1676. On May 24, the petition
            and the charter party were both read before the Provincial Court, and the Court
            held that the business of the petition was not legally before them. On the same
            day, they ordered the arrest of Fulford to answer Peighen's plea that he render
            him £1000 which he owed and unjustly detained (post, p. 298). Fulford ap-
            peared by his attorney and won a delay until June 5. On June 7, the two parties
            appeared by their attorneys. Peighen recited the charter party and said that he
            had done all it bound him to do, that Fulford and his factor had not done all
            they were to do, and that furthermore Leach had tried to get him to pay the
            seamen's wages. “whereupon action hath accrued to the said Thomas to require
            & have of the said George the said summe of One thousand pounds of lawfull
            mony of England & thereupon he bringeth his suite.” To this Fulford replied
            that he had done all that was required of him, and both parties prayed a jury
            trial. The jury found that the ship was in the country of Maryland, and the
            Provincial Court awarded Fulford 1 154 pounds of tobacco for his costs and
            charges, and declared Peighen's claim false (post, p. 302). At common law this
            verdict was the only one possible, for the charter party provided that all pay-
            ments were to be made in London, so that, on the face of it, Peighen had no
            right to demand that payment be made in the Province.
             But the Court declared a stay of execution until October 10, 1676, and
            Peighen had time to take further action. He filed a bill in Chancery, and also
            filed an injunction, which was granted (post, pp. 371-372; Archives, LI, p. 469),
            staying the three actions taken against him by Leach until after the hearing of
            his Chancery bill. The case came to a hearing in the Chancery Court on Decem-
            ber 7, 1676, and Peighen and Leach were there with their counsel. Fulford,
            for all anyone knew, was in London. The substance of the charter party was
            given at even greater length than when the case was heard in the Provincial
            Court. It was emphasized that all the goods in the ship were bound to the
            complainant Peighen as security for the payment of the charges agreed on. He
            had landed most of the cargo and was ready to land the remainder when he
            and the chief mate and the seamen got word from London that “the said