Introduction.              xv

        Darnall of Calvert, Chandler of Charles, and Lowe of Talbot, and it happened
        again June 11, 1678 to Taillor of Dorchester, Chandler of Charles, Darnall
        of Calvert, Long of Baltimore, Marsh of Kent and Welsh of Anne Arundel
        (post, pp. 47, 436). For Darnall and for Chandler this was a second offence.
        The Governor remitted Darnall's fine the first time but not the second. Sheriff
        Taillor of Dorchester was still a justice of the court that imposed the fines,
        hut he does not appear to have been present at the time.
          Because there were no criminal cases that came up now, there were no grand
        juries summoned, but petit or petty juries (both terms are correct) were called
        to settle upwards of thirty civil cases. Whenever one party to a suit put him
        self upon the country and the other party likewise, the Court ordered the
        sheriff of St. Mary's County (it was always that sheriff who was called on) to
        cause to come here twelve &c. And when they came, they were “impannelled
        suffioned & Sworne to say the truth”, or sometimes “elected tryed & sworne
        • . .“ Besides the trial juries there were other kinds. If the Court felt that
        damages should be recovered but did not know how high they should be, the
        sheriff of St. Mary's would be ordered to summon a jury “diligently to Enquire
        what damages” had been sustained, and the verdict of that jury was always
        followed by the Court, even when the jury said no damages at all. On October
        9, 1677, after a lengthy trial in the Court of Chancery (Archives LI, pp. 488-
        496) the defendant was ordered to pay the complainant such charges and dam
        ages as he the complainant had sustained by reason of the failure of the de
        fendant to perform an agreement. A jury of enquiry of damages was ordered
        summoned, to go into the question and “what upon the said Juryes verdict shall
        appeare to be due unto the said Compit for Damages aforesaid the said
        Defendt . . . is to pay the same to him accordingly.” The sheriff summoned
        the customary twelve good and lawful men of his bailiwick as he was com
        manded to do, and they, being sworn to say that the truth in the premisses
        “upon their Oaths do say that the said Thomas Sprigg [complainant] hath not
        sustained Any charges or damages by occasion of the premisses Therefore itt
        is considered by the Court here that the said [defendant] Thomas Trueman
        goe thereof without day”. The Court said damages: the jury said no damages,
        and the defendant went free (post, pp. 415-416).
          Juries were often summoned in land cases. The Court directed the deputy
        surveyor of the county in which the disputed land lay to go upon it with the
        sheriff and twelve honest and legal men of the neighborhood, and to resurvey
        the property, that the Court, being fully informed, might do as to justice should
        appertain. After the resurvey, the deputy surveyor returned a plot and certifi
        cate, signed by all hands, and that was the end of the dispute. Either the de
        fendant confessed judgment or the plaintiff refused to prosecute and was
        accordingly nonsuited. In only one case did the Court need to exercise its wis
        dom. In the case of Daniel Cuningham & ux. v. Richard Edwards & ux., after
        the making of the plot and certificate, the parties asked the judgment of the
        Court. The justices after study and examination, ordered that the parties hold
        their several tracts of land according to the certificate and plot and that each
        party bear his own charges (post, pp. 449-452).