INTRODUCTION lxxv

clerk of the indictments he was to take down the information of the complainant
or informant under oath and present it to the court (or to one justice if out of
court) for its approval before a presentment was exhibited to the grand jury. Fail-
ure to comply with this rule entailed the penalty of payment of all costs and dam-
ages incurred by any person presented and no true bill found.12 No such screening
process is evident from the Liber entries. In a few cases persons appearing pursuant
to recognizance were cleared by proclamation when the complainant failed to
prosecute.

In a number of cases presentments were made by a constable.13 (It was not the
practice in Prince Georges County to systematically include constables on the
grand jury, as in some parts or courts of England.14) Such presentments were not
made to the court but to the grand jury which re-presented the offender or found
a true bill. Whether the constable, like other witnesses, went before the grand
jury and whether he was sworn does not appear from the Liber. Presentments by
constables were usually simple in form, as follows:

I doe present James Boulton for denying his taxables. by William Mills Constable.15

In other cases the bill or presentment by the grand jury took the following form
(endorsed Billa Vera on the back):

Wee doe present Isaack Williams and William Willson for Killing a heifer by the
information of John Browne Jr. and John Murth.16

In other instances a more elaborate form of presentment, drawn up by the clerk
of the indictments, was used. The following is an example:

Prince Georges County Ss.

The Jurors of our Sovereigne Lord the King that now is for the body of Prince Georges
County for his Said Majesty upon their oaths doe present Matthew Mackeboy of the
County aforesaid planter for that the Said Matthew to witt att Charles Towne within the
County aforesaid the 24th day of June 1696 did Sware divers prophane Oaths against
the Laws of God and this province

Bladen pro Rege17

A still more elaborate form, one derived from the form of indictment used in
English practice, also drawn up by the clerk of the indictments, was employed at
times, as in the case of the presentments of Hugh Riley and Joshua Hall for de-
faming one of the justices.18

12. BCCP, Liber G, No. 1 (1693-96), 417. Cf. the instance in Charles County in which the court
heard the witnesses and then sent them to the grand jury for its determination whether the matter
was presentable. CCCR, Liber V, No. 1, 123-24. Dalton recognized that at quarter sessions "it may
be very reasonable, if the matter be weighty or difficult, and the Jury be not very able, or the
Prosecution be too slack or over violent, to hear the Evidence given in Court, that so the Jury may
be the better assisted in doing their duty." The Countrey Justice 535.

13. For reference to presentments in the constable's oath see supra p. xliii.

14. See the discussion in Goebel and Naughton, Law Enforcement in Colonial New York 332-33
(1944) and Dalton, The Countrey Justice 534.

15. Infra 71.

16. Infra 71.

17. Infra 24.

18. Infra 256-57. In one Provincial Court case on error from Somerset County Court it was as-
signed as a ground of error that the record and presumably the presentment did not give de-
fendant's mystery or occupation. See Kilty's comment on 1 Hen. V, c. 5. Op. cit. supra, 226. In an-
other case it was held not material error that the indictment did not state the statute on which
grounded. PCJ, Liber WT, No. 3, 332-38, 251-52. Kilty states that the first part of 37 Hen. VIII,
c. 8 (An act that any indictment lacking these words, vi et armis, shall be good), corresponding with
its title, was considered to have been always in force in the province. Op. cit. supra, 233.