Introduction.            xvii

           In the Anne Arundel County court, Samuel Bagbey brought action of trover
         and conversion against Thomas Smithwick for a gun. In the lower Court,
         Bagbey was nonsuited, but he appealed to the Provincial Court, and, on giv
         ing security to prosecute, he had his appeal allowed. Samuel had a gun “about
         five foot by the barrell marked with N: B: with a brasse plate about the Stock
         of the Said Gunn of the value of foure hundred pounds of tobacco as of his
         owne proper goods”. On October 20, 1675, “Colonell Samuell Chew did im
         presse [the gun] for the service of the Country against the Indians and [it]
         was casually lost. . . .“ Several months Thomas Smithwick found it, and he
         refused to return it to Bagbey. On the appeal, the owner sued the finder, the
         finder pleaded not guilty, and both parties put themselves “upon the judgment
         of the Court. . .“ After the trial, the Court granted that “the said Samuel
         Bagbey recover against the Said Thomas Smithwick the Gunn aforesaid or
         three hundred pounds of tobacco damages . . . together with One Thousand
         flinty & Eight pounds of tobacco Costs of Suite.” (post, p. 22).
           In the case of Moy's Executors v. Philip Burges, the executors of Elizabeth
         Moy who had been executrix of her husband Richard, sued Philip Burges in
         Calvert County court on a bill for 820 pounds of tobacco. Burges pleaded non
         est factum, and the lower court held that the bill was not sufficiently proven,
         and ordered a nonsuit against the executors. They appealed to the Provincial
         Court, and the Court issued a capias to the Calvert County sheriff to produce
         Burges before them on June 19, 1677. On that day, Sheriff Darnall returned
         that Burges could not be found in his bailiwick, and on June 23, Robert Car-
         vile, one of the executors, asked the Court to declare that the bill was proven.
         The Court ruled that the evidence was good. In October, Carvile laid the
         opinion of the Provincial Court before the Calvert County court and asked that
         the executors have judgment for the debt and for their costs. This the lower
         court refused to do, but when this refusal was made known to the Provincial
         Court, they granted the executors the debt, and 854 pounds of tobacco more,
         for their costs (post, pp. 107-108).
           Sometimes when a case was appealed from a county court, the Provincial
         Court did no more than send it back. By a procedendo, it ordered the case
         back to the county court for retrial. This happened three times in these ses
         sions, and in all three cases, one or the other of the parties failed to appear.
         In the Cecil County case of Young v. Hyland, or Highland, Defendant Hyland
         failed to appear, and the Court had patience enough to warn his lawyer, before
         issuing the writ (post, p. 140). In Thompson v. Atkey (post, p. 178) and in
         Clayland v. Fames (post, p. 206), the procedendo was granted now.
           The case that appears in these proceedings as Peca v. Stockett was a long
         time in getting settled. Robert Peca and Henry Stockett were both persistent.
         In 1675, Peca had a tenant, Thomas Knighton. Knighton gave to Col. Samuel
         Chew his note for 2400 pounds of tobacco on Peca's account for rent, and Col.
         Chew gave a receipt for 1800 pounds (post, p. 146). Thomas Taillor got from
         the Anne Arundel County court a writ of fieri facias against Knighton for 2400
         pounds of tobacco. Henry Stockett, then sheriff of Anne Arundel, went to
         Knighton's tobacco house on Herring Creek and levied by way of execution