Introduction. xix

the land from John Abington, and had made it into a plantation. On it he had
built "one dwelling House, Two tobacco houses, one Milke house, one hog
house, One hen house" and had planted a nursery and an orchard. He had also
cleared and fenced a corn field and a tobacco patch. For the tobacco crop he
had made eight tobacco hogsheads (Remember that he was a cooper), and these
hogsheads were on the plantation when Mrs. Letchworth recovered possession
(post, 138). It was then the proper time to pack tobacco and the crop was in
good condition to be struck, but Mrs. Letchworth obstructed and hindered his
workmen and seized the eight hogsheads. Before he could get or make others,
his crop was wasted and destroyed by cattle, and the tobacco house was blown
down and burned, so that he lost the whole of his year's profit. Accordingly,
he sued Mrs. Letchworth for 8ooo pounds of tobacco. At the suit she pleaded
not guilty, but the jury held her guilty, though it gave the cooper only 200
pounds of tobacco (post, 137-140).

The case of Stocket v. Peca had been in litigation for several years. Henry
Stocket had sued Robert Peca in the Anne Arundel County court and had ob-
tained a judgment (Archives LXVII, xvii-xix; ibid., LXVII, 155-156). Peca
got from the Chancellor a writ of error to the Provincial Court, and Stocket
lost (ibid.). Stocket then petitioned the Proprietary and the Council for a writ
of error to the Upper House of Assembly. The Proprietary was at the time
in the Province. And they referred the petition to the Provincial Court, com-
posed of the same men as the Council. When, in the Court, the petition was
read and heard, the Court ordered that Stocket, on giving security to prosecute,
should have the writ he wanted. Stocket gave the desired security and got the
writ (post, 63-64). This was in October 1679, but the next session of the
General Assembly did not take place until August 16, 1781. On August 24,
1681, a petition from Stocket was presented to the Upper House. This was
indeed speedy action. His Lordship, Charles Calvert, still in the Province,

acted as speedily. Serving as governor, he answered with a "fiat Jutsticia", and

the petition was underwritten in that way. By that time Peca was dead
(Archives VII, 127-128), and nothing more is known now.

In 1678 John Quigley asked Robert Ellys to buy for him a pipe of "good
St. Georges or ffyall wine" at Charles Gosfright's store on the Patuxent River,
and to carry the wine up to him Quigley. Ellys said that he did buy the wine
and did send it to Quigley, and that he deserved for that 2500 pounds of
tobacco. A pipe of wine contained a hundred and twenty-six gallons, so that a
gallon of wine was priced at just under twenty pounds of tobacco. When the
case came to trial, Quigley said that he had not assumed, as Ellys said, but a
little later he confessed judgment for the 2500 pounds damages, and also for
1246 pounds more for costs (Archives LXVIII, 166). Even so, Ellys had to
get an attachment, but when the sheriff came to execute it, he found Quigley
dead, and the estate in the hands of his administrator (post, 8o) not sufficient
to satisfy the judgment.

Mr. John Browne of Salem in New England was still trying to get the
Proprietary to restore to him or to the heir of his son James, as much as he
could of the son's estate. Son James had killed himself in 1675; that made him