INTRODUCTION cvii

Several acts of 1692 limited and allowed fees to the Chancellor, the secretary of the
province, the Commissary General, the surveyor general, the sheriffs and coroners
of the several counties, the cryers of the Provincial Court, and the clerks and criers
of the several county courts (the clerk of the Council, and the clerk of the Court
of Appeals were added later). These acts further provided that if any person re-
fused to pay such fees the various officials named therein might recover the same
by way of execution against the body or goods of the person so refusing, provided
that a true and just account of the fees due was first delivered to the person or
persons from whom such fees demanded were then due. 84

These acts led to abuses in that execution issued out against the bodies or goods
of persons before the services for which the fees were due were finished or the
record thereof made up. Therefore, in 1697 the Assembly passed a law that no
court of record or any justice or magistrate should grant or sign execution for any
public officer's fees, which execution was given by law, until the person actually
exercising the office made oath that (1) the service for which the fees were charged
was completely finished, (2) the record thereof was fairly entered up and completed,
if it depended on any matter of record, and (3) no fees were wilfully charged con-
trary to law. The court or justice signing the execution was to note that the oath
had been duly made before execution was signed.85

Apparently, judging from a legislative recital, execution by capias ad satis-
faciendum, permitted under the 1692 act, due to the neglect and errors of sheriffs
and other deputies, resulted in many debtors of the poorer classes, after having
paid their accounts, being charged again and unjustly taken in execution upon
such capias and imprisoned, the imprisonment in many cases being a greater charge
than the debts. An October 1698 act accordingly provided that, after the present
session of Assembly, no fees due any public officer whatever should be levied but
by fieri facias against the goods and chattels of the debtor, provided the debtor had
goods and chattels to the value of the fees due and disclosed the same to the sheriff
or his deputy. However, if the debtor did not have goods and chattels sufficient to
defray such fees, it would then be lawful to have execution by capias ad satis-
faciendum. 86

A later act (July 1699) permitted the fees limited and allowed to be recovered by
way of execution against the goods, tobacco and chattels of any person refusing to
pay the same, provided that in the case of persons having no tobacco and refusing
to show their goods and chattels to the collecting officers, it should be lawful for
such officials to take the bodies of such persons in execution. Service of a true and
just account of the fees demanded had to be made upon the person from whom
due at least thirty days before execution was levied. 87 In addition, by acts of 1697
and 1699 sheriffs were prohibited from levying by way of execution for any public
dues or officer's fees on any inhabitants where demand had not been made before
the 20th of December in any year. 88

Acts of 1692 and 1699 provided for forfeitures of 100 pounds of tobacco by any
freeman neglecting or refusing to attend militia training or mustering or refusing
to be enlisted into the militia and by masters hindering their servants in such
militia service. Certain militia officers were authorized to award execution against

84. 13 id. 506, 512; 22 id. 570; 38 id. 83.

85. 38 id. 101.

86. 38 id. 121. A member had moved in the Lower House that having execution upon the
bodies of persons indebted for official fees "is altogether contrary to the Rules of the Common
Law and practice in England" and that it might be sufficient for such officers to have only fieri
facias. 22 id. 224.

87. 38 id. 83.

88. 38 id. 105; 22 id. 504.