INTRODUCTION cxi

The first such removal was in Short v. Gardiner, an action of trespass on the case
for 8000 pounds of tobacco in the November 1696 court, the gravamen of the injury
alleged being that defendant, John Gardiner, had openly and publicly stated that
John Short had taken a false oath, was forsworn, and was a forsworn fellow and
that he (defendant) would prove it. The entry in the Liber merely noted the re-
moval by habeas corpus and ordered that a transcript of the action should be sent
to the Provincial Court which was done. The records of the Provincial Court for
1699 show that the cause was removed by writ of certiorari; that, after an im-
parlance, plaintiff Short defaulted, and that it was adjudged that Gardiner recover
3021 pounds of tobacco as costs and charges. 96

In Edmundson v. Plumer, an action of trespass on the case for £36 damages,
also in the November 1696 court, defendant's attorney produced a writ of habeas
corpus for removal of the cause to the Provincial Court and the justices ordered
a transcript sent up. The records of the Provincial Court for 1697 reveal that,
after an imparlance, the cause was entered as agreed.97 In Carleton v. Crofts in
the March 1697/8 court, an action of trespass on the case involving an account
of 1784 pounds of tobacco, damages to the amount of 3000 pounds of tobacco
were alleged. After John Meriton had appeared and imparled, he then produced
in court in the next term "a writt of Certiorary or Habeas Corpus for the Re-
mo veall of the aforesaid Action to the Provincial! Court which Said writt was by
the Justices here Allowed off." The records of the Provincial Court for 1698 showr a
jury verdict for defendant and judgment thereon including 1491 pounds of tobacco
for costs of suit. 98

Review

As noted earlier, the judicial hierarchy in Maryland c. 1696-99 contemplated
that the Provincial Court exercise appellate jurisdiction over the several county
courts by appeal and by writ of error. However, an October 1695 act provided that
no person or persons whatsoever against whom any judgment was given in any
county court should be allowed any appeal or writ of error to the Provincial
Court in the event the original debt or damages for which such judgment was
given did not amount to £6 or twelve hundred pounds of tobacco. This act also
provided that no execution upon any judgment obtained in any county court
should be stayed or delayed or any supersedeas upon any such judgment granted
or issued forth upon any appeal or writ of error from such court to the Provincial
Court, unless the person making such appeal or bringing such writ, or some person
acting in his behalf, should immediately upon making such appeal or suing out
such writ enter into a bond in double the sum recovered with sufficient sureties
approved by the justices or the Keeper of the Seal (to whom application for the
writ of error was to be made). The bond would remain in full force and effect if the
party making the appeal or suing out the writ of error did not (1) pursue the direc-
tions of the act (see below) at the next Provincial Court, (2) prosecute the appeal
or writ of error with effect, and (3) in case the judgment was affirmed, satisfy
respondent for all the debts, damages and costs adjudged in the county court, as
also for all costs and damages awarded by the Provincial Court.99

96. Infra 98-99; PCJ, Liber HW, No. 3,101,214. As to any removal by habeas corpus or certiorari
after issue joined see the comment of Kilty on the extension of 2 Hen. V, St. 1, c. 2 and 21 Jac. I, c. 23.
Op. cit. supra 226, 238.

97. Infra 99-100; PCJ, Liber HW, No. 3, 100, 244.

98. Infra 340-41; PCJ, Liber IL, 76-78.

99. 38 MA 59. See also reference to "Rules of the Provintiall Court." Infra 237.