MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS 653

after the Bond in question was past shipped Tobacco on Board or not for
that I presume was admitted, but what did weigh with the Jury to find the
DeP not guilty was a permit of Trade vnder the hand and Seal of the Col-
lector which was produced to the Jury as Evidence for the Def^ts Clearing.
And if the same permit was not sufficient Evidence in Law to indemnify the
DeP against the breach of the Law the Counsell for the plaintiffes ought to
have demurred therevnto, as in the third Article above is mentioned; so
that the Counsell for the plaintiffe having waved that advantage and the per-
mit not being contradicted the Jury (in my Opinion) might well find the
Def^t not guilty without the danger of an Attaint, if any Attaint in this Case
would lye, which most of the Books agree cannot.

Shep Epit. 121. 122. The King or an Informer cannot have this Writt
Fitz. Na. Br. Verb. Attaint says the same, Only I find in Cro: i. part Abrid
N^o 731. The Queen and Ingorsells It was the Opinion of the Justices that
an Attaint lyes where a Verdict passeth against the Queen, vpon an Infor-
mation. And furthermore if the s^d permit did dispose to the breach of the
Laws of Trade, who shall incurr the penalty I humbly submit to your Ex^ncle*
grave Judgm^t and consideration.

Rob^t Carvile
I am of this Opinion. Will^m Dent