cxii PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY

The statutory method and rule for prosecution of appeals and writs of error
provided that the party appealing or suing out the writ of error procure a copy or
transcript of the full proceedings of the county court under the hand of the
clerk of the court and the seal thereof, cause the same to be transmitted to the
Provincial Court, and also file in writing, according to the rule of the Provincial
Court, such error in the proceedings as he thought fit to assign or such cause or
causes as he had for making the appeal or suing out the writ of error. Upon such
transcript the Provincial Court was to proceed to give judgment.

The 1695 act, as well as a later 1699 act, somewhat enigmatically related that
"all appeals made in manner aforesaid shall be admitted and allowed of by the
Superior Court to whom such appeal shall be made as aforesaid in nature of a
Writt of Error." Every clerk, when any appeal was demanded, was to enter a
memorandum of such demand in his journal as well as in the fair records of the
court's proceedings. No clerk was to refuse or delay upon request of any appellant
to furnish a transcript under his hand and the seal of the court upon penalty of
paying the damages appellant sustained by such refusal or delay. 100

The distinction between appeal and writ of error proceedings from the county
courts to the Provincial Court is blurred and not clarified by the enigmatic statu-
tory passage set forth above. Appeal might well have been a cheaper method of
proceeding. However, it seems reasonable to surmise that the purport of the re-
strictive language was to serve notice that the appellate body was limited in the
scope of its review to matter of law and was not free to review matter of fact, as in
Chancery or civil law appeals.

On June 1, 1697 a member of the House of Delegates proposed that "some care
be taken by a Law otherwise to Restraine the frequent and vexatious suites of
appeales and Writts Error from the County Courts of this province to the Pro-
venciall [Court] for there formalitys in Law and many times for the Error of the
clerks and attorneys who are not of Capacity to make theire proceedings agreeable
to the Strict Rules of the Law of England, for defect whereof the Judges of Law
can not do otherwise than reverse the Judgment." Leave being given to prepare
a bill as thus proposed, a bill was brought in which ultimately was enacted into
law as An Act for the Reformation of Jeofailes in Maryland.101

This act recited that "many Judgments may have been heretofore given in divers
County Courts which may remaine Imperfect and insufficient in Law and thereby
subject to be reversed by Errour according to the strickt rules of Law." It was
accordingly provided that in any judgment given in any county court more than a
year prior thereto, unless a writ of error to the Provincial Court was brought
within six months after the date of the act, and in case of any judgment given in
the future in any county court in any personal action, unless such writ of error was
brought within one year from the granting of such judgment, the person re-
covering such judgment, whether by verdict or by judgment of the court, was to
enjoy the benefit of such judgment without any reversal by writ of error or at-
taint. An exception was made in the case of persons under age, under coverture,
non compos mentis or not resident in the province during the period of their dis-
ability. However, this act was apparently repealed by implication in June, 1699, not
being enumerated in the act ascertaining the laws of the province.102

100. For the 1699 act see 22 id. 469. Kilty (op. cit supra 212-13) states that 13 Ed. I, St. I, c. 31,
providing for a bill of exceptions had always been practised under in the province but we have
seen no use of a bill of exceptions in connection with the error jurisdiction of the Provincial Court
at this time.

101. 19 MA 565.

102. 38 id. 103; 22 id. 558.