xlvi PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY

manship, the jurisdictional lines are blurred. A number of provincial laws
provided for enforcement by means of either informations or civil actions in either
the Provincial Court or the county courts. Since there appears to have been greater
resort to civil actions under these statutes, they are discussed under Section VII
below.

Concurrent Statutory Jurisdiction

Acts of Assembly of 1694 and 1699 provided punishment for the offenses of
blasphemy, fornication and adultery, but were silent as to jurisdiction. 6 While,
except for third offenders, no reason appears why the county courts could not
exercise jurisdiction in blasphemy cases, it is likely that, in view of the stiff
penalties provided, such offenses would normally come before the Provincial
Court. By the 1694 statute fornication was punishable by a fine of £1 or 400 pounds
of tobacco, adultery by a fine of £2 or 800 pounds of tobacco. (Offenders lacking
goods and chattels sufficient to satisfy the fine were to receive such punishment as
the justices should think fit, not extending to life or member.) The 1699 act pro-
vided, as an alternative to fines in fornication and adultery cases, corporal punish-
ment by whipping at the court's discretion, not exceeding thirty-nine lashes. The
reference to fines for fornication "by the Court before Whom such Matter shall
be brought" indicates that the county courts had concurrent jurisdiction in fornica-
tion and adultery cases. This is confirmed by the Liber.

A 1692 act provided that for the wilful and malicious burning of fences to the
injury of any inhabitant the offender should suffer such penalties or undergo such
punishment as the laws of England provided against such practices or was to make
restitution by paying treble the damages sustained, as the justices hearing the case
should determine. 7 Seemingly the Provincial Court and the county courts exer-
cised concurrent jurisdiction; the members of the Provincial Court are referred to
as "justices" in judicial records and acts.

A 1694 act (An Act Concerning those Servants that have Bastards) provided that
a female servant having a bastard child and unable to prove paternity should be
liable to satisfy her master for the damage sustained by servitude or otherwise as
the court before whom the matter was brought thought convenient. 8 The Liber
confirms that this act served to confer jurisdiction on the county courts, as well as
the Provincial Court. If paternity were proved, then the party charged, if a servant,
was to satisfy half the damage and, if a freeman, the whole damage, by servitude
or otherwise as the court thought convenient. If the party charged was a single
freeman and had promised marriage prior to the begetting, he was to have the
choice of marriage or recompensing the abuse as the court should adjudge. While
this law made no reference to fines or corporal punishment, the Liber shows such
punishment imposed by the justices in bastardy cases involving servants. A related
1692 act provided penalties for "free born English and white women," free or
servant, marrying or having children by negroes or other slaves. 9 It is not clear
whether the county courts had jurisdiction over all the offenses covered by this act;
the law specifically provided, however, that the justices of the county courts should
have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudge damages in the event the offender was a
servant and bore a child during her period of service.

6. 38 id. 19; 22 id. 523.

7. 13 id. 487. Cf. note 4 supra.

8. 38 MA 20.

9. 13 id. 546.