cxiv PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY

matter of law and the jury of the fact, as in Coke upon Littleton, ad questionem

facti non respondent judices, ad questionem juris non respondent juratores.

For these several reasons the appellant prayed that the judgment below be re-
versed, annulled, made void and set aside. The Provincial Court records show that
on September 18, 1698, the justices having heard and fully understood the record
and proceedings of the county court and the reasons of appeal, together with the
arguments and pleadings of both sides, adjudged that the reasons of appeal were
sufficient in law to set aside the judgment. Accordingly, the judgment below was
reversed and set aside and defendant-appellant awarded 1148 pounds in costs
and charges. Unfortunately, the Provincial Court entry does not pinpoint the exact
grounds for the reversal.

Some opposition to interference by the Court of Chancery in common law
proceedings manifested itself in the province. In September 1693 it was moved
by a member of the House of Delegates that it was "a Grievance to the Subject
and in Derogation of the Common Law for the Chancellor to grant an injunction
or give a decree in any causes Contrary to the matter of fact found by a Jury and
the Matter of Law adjudged by a Court of Common Law in this Province, Espe-
cially the Provinciall Court." Put to a vote it was carried in the affirmative nemine
contradicente.106

In the House of Delegates in May 1697 it was presented as a grievance that
many persons cast in the county courts in suits in which an appeal did not lie
(under 1200 pounds of tobacco) "of a Litigious and vexatious humor when they
cannot by common Law appeale as aforesaid do yet contentiously and vexatiously
evade and supercede such Judgment by Injunctions out of the Chancery to the
very great agrievance and vexation of many good people of this province." It
was accordingly resolved that a bill be brought to stop injunctions in Chancery
where the originall debt or demand did not exceed 1200 pounds of tobacco. 107
However, whatever conditions may have been in other counties, no instances
appear in the Liber of injunctions issued out of Chancery after verdict or judg-
ment. In Martin v. Sporne a pending cause was removed by injunction to the
Court of Chancery.108

XII. CONCLUSION

Interest in and scrutiny of the judicial system of Maryland in the closing years
of the seventeenth century has tended to focus upon the Court of Appeals and the
Provincial Court. The role assumed by the several county courts has received little
attention, particularly from the viewpoint of the legal as opposed to the social
historian.

The present study of the workings of one county court for a period of three years
admits of some conclusions. The main outline of such conclusions would not
change, we believe, if a more extended study were undertaken of all the sur-
viving county court records for the period 1695-1700.

The county courts played a significant part in the expeditious handling of
actions arising ex contractu in the province, largely actions on bills obligatory or
accounts not involving substantial amounts. On the criminal side these courts
afforded speedy law enforcement in the case of minor offenses. As to administrative
matters, the county courts were the focus of much activity, easily surpassing the

106. 19 MA 18-19.

107. 19 id. 559.

108. Infra 544