Provincial Court Proceedings, 1679/80. 201

3 The Defend^t ought in his plea to have pleaded the body of the
Act and not the title onely, if hee had pleaded the title right) other-
wise the plea is Eronious and insufficient
4. Itt is apparent by the Account and the Record of the proceed-
ings aforesaid, that the Capias issued and was Returnable before
the Act of Limtacon Could take place to barr the p^lts Accon afore-
said to any part of the said Account except the first Line for Two
quarts of wine 50^lb tob. w^ch is w^thin the Statute had it beene well
pleaded, but the pl^t ought to have had Judgment for the Remaind^r
of y^e debt
5. The Defend^t by his plea in barr admitts the debt to bee Just
and noe need had there beene of proveing the Account or any order
from the Defend^t for Changes, and Itt is Evident there was Just
Cause of Accon for the plt. and if soe the order Erronious and
Untrue,
And therefore and for the Reasons aforesaid the said Garret
sayth the said Record of the proceedings and Judgment of the
County Court of Charles County afores^d are Very Illegall and
Erronious, and hee prayeth that the said Judgment of the County
Court may bee Reversed and sett a side, and that the plt may haue
Judgment for his debt aforesaid W^th Damages and Costs.
And the said Josias by Henry Bonner his Attorney aforesaid
Prayed the hearing of the said Errors & they are Read unto him,
and hee prayeth time to speake unto the same till the next Court,
and Itt is granted unto him. the same day is granted to both parties
Att w^ch said next Provinciall Court to witt the ffif teenth day of
May in the ffifth yeare of the Dominion of Charles Lord Balte-
more &c Annoq Dominj 1680 Came the said partyes by theire At-
torneys aforesaid, and the said Josias ffendall by his said Attorney
sayth That the Judgm^t aforesaid in the writt of Error menconed
given by the said Court is good and effectuall in Lawe, and ought
not to bee Reversed for the Reasons above Alleaged. because hee
saith.
I^st As to the first Reason Supposed by the Pit, that the Defend^t
ought to haue appeared by his Attorney, and not in his prop pson
This Defend^t sayth that it is not absolutely necessary in Lawe for
the partyes in theire pleas to appeare by Atto^r for orriginally all
appearances were made in person and noe Attorney w^thout the writt
of Attornato faciendo, and That itt is for the partyes ease to putt
in an Attorney but noe man Obleiged thereunto :

Liber W. C.

2dly: As to the second this Defend^t sayth whether the Act bee
rightly Intituled yea or noe, The p^lt in case Itt had not beene rightly
Intituled should haue pleaded. That there was noe such Act w^cb
being matter of ffact hee should have Traversed it in Replyeing to
the Defend^ts plea Itt being now too late to take such Advantage
3 As to the third that the Defend^t ought to have Pleaded the body

p. 180