Introduction.            xxix

        George ffulford was broken . . . and that Caution was thereby given
        [them] to Secure the hire of the said Shipp & Seamens Wages & the Charge
        for the Victualls & Port dutyes either by the Said Goods Imported or by the
        Tobacco the produce thereof Exported or else they might Expect to receive
        nothing att the Port of discharge att London from the said ffulford”. Peighen
        believed that Leach knew of Fulford's condition and. that the two had combined
        to defraud him, and on this belief was to be based the refusal of the seamen
        to unload or to sail back to London empty. He admitted that only a court of
        equity could handle his difficulty, since in law he had no ground to enforce
        payment for the hire of the ship until the certificates were returned. In order
        to have security for this hire and to indemnify the ship on account of the sea-
        men's wages, as well as to protect himself and his owners against the “apparent
        fraud in the said ffulford & Leach . . . he humbly craved the aid & assistance
        of this Honble Court”. He asked “that the said ffulford & Leach might answer
        the prmisses & be Ordered to pay or Indempnifie the Compit & Shipp from the
        said Seamens wages & from Port dutyes . . . & pay & secure the pay for the
        Victualling of the said Shipp, & pay or secure the pay for the hire of the said
        Shipp by & out of the Goods Shipped on board the said Shipp, & that the Goods
        remaining in . . . [her] may be Appraided & Sold for paymt” of all of these
        charges (Archives, LI, p. 469).
         Leach appeared, having been subpoenaed (Archives, LI, p. 179), and made
        answer to Peighen's bill. He believed that there was such a charter party, that
        Peighen had sailed and had been forced into Barbados to refit and repair, but
        he believed that this was due to the negligence of the Captain and the seamen.
        He said the goods in the ship were consigned to him, and the Captain was to
        obey his orders about her. At Peighen's instance he had sold out of the cargo
        goods worth £150 sterling, and the Captain had agreed that this money should
        be deducted from what was due for ship hire. As to the two bills of lading,
        Leach said one was for goods belonging to him and marked with his mark, the
        other for Fulford's goods. He stressed the fact that there had been a refusal to
        finish the unloading or to sail back to London empty, though the captain was
        bound to obey his orders. What was due was, in any case, to be paid in London,
        not in Maryland. He knew of no bankrupt proceedings against Fulford, he
        had received no letters to that portent, and he had entered into no combination
        with Fulford. Neither law nor equity compelled him to secure the hire of the
        ship, since it had not been demanded and denied in London, where it was sup-
        posed to be paid. With a general traverse he ended his answer (Archives,
        LI, p. 471).
         So the cause stood at issue upon bill and answer. Peighen's counsel moved
        the Court that the case come to a hearing, so that the matter, which involved
        a ship's captain and his merchant, might be disposed of without further delay,
        for the ship had already been in the Province a long time. Since this was the
        usual practice in equity, the Court proceeded to a hearing. Peighen said that,
        as soon as a certificate of the arrival of the ship in the Province arrived in
        London, demand had been made at Fulford's dwelling, and there was no one
        there to pay. Nor was there any way to secure the ship's hire, the seamen's