INTRODUCTION lix

listing returns of process or subpoenas for witnesses or in lists of appearances
entered or of continued causes. However, in almost 350 actions judgment was
entered or a non-suit granted; judgment was entered following a trial by a jury or
the court in about 90 of these causes. In many of the others judgment was entered
for plaintiff when defendant confessed judgment or pleaded nihil dicit or his at-
torney entered a plea of non sum informatus.

Of the causes in the Liber probably close to 70% are actions of trespass on the
case, and about 30% are actions of debt. Of the remaining few two actions are
entered as "Assault." 8 One is designated as detinue; it concerned the detention
of a "Large boate called a Flatt." 9 Six are denominated actions of covenant, sev-
eral involving breach of indentures or agreements governing the working of a
plantation by a tenant.10

The principal function of the court on the civil side was in the enforcement of
contractual claims. The great majority of the actions of trespass on the case were
brought on a balance of accounts for goods sold and delivered. A number of such
actions were brought by the English merchant houses trading in the province—
Edward and Dudley Carleton, Joseph Jackson and Company, Peter Paggan and
Company and John Marsh and Company—for various imported items. A number
were also brought by the several persons keeping ordinaries in the county for
liquors, meals, lodging, etc. supplied. A few were brought for attorneys' fees or a
physician's fees; others for rents due from lease of real property, use of a servant or
services performed. Several actions were on "notes" given by or drawn on local resi-
dents or on bills of exchange drawn according to the custom of merchants on
persons in England. Only a few of the actions of trespass on the case involve
trover and conversion, detinue sur trover or defamation. Virtually all the actions
of debt were brought on bills or writings obligatory under seal.11

Statutory Actions

A number of Maryland statutes, as we have seen, conferred concurrent jurisdic-
tion upon the Provincial Court and the county courts over so-called popular ac-
tions; in a few cases exclusive jurisdiction resided in the county courts.12 These
actions were given upon the breach of a penal statute. They usually provided, with
some verbal variants, that any person or persons that should sue for the same (some-
times called the informer) might recover the penalty or forfeiture "by Bill plaint
Action of debt or Information in any Court of Record wherein no Essoyn Protec-
tion or Wager of Law to be Allowed." This or similar terminology appears in
numerous Tudor and Stuart penal statutes; it is doubtful whether the "wherein"
clause served any functional purpose in Maryland at this time. Normally one-half
of the fine or forfeiture recovered went to the crown (or in some cases to a parish
or some more limited governmental purpose) and one-half to the person suing.

8. Groome v. Davis, entered as "agreed", infra 181, 245, 275, 320; Warren v. Murphey, capias
returned non est, infra 372.

9. Tracey v. Hulse, infra 54, 66.

10. Smart v. Powell, infra 37, 50, 76-78; Holliday v. Stevens, infra 37; Watts v. Marsham, infra
245; Addison v. Groome, infra 295, 343, 358, 415-17; Liddall v. Groome, infra 453; Dennis v.
Prather, infra 514, 529, 579.

11. See the Subject Matter Index under appropriate headings.

12. In a few cases the statutes referred to "any court of the Province" or were silent as to
the court in which recovery was to be had, but from the context it would appear that a court of
record was intended.