142 court of appeals of maryland

terms, to proceedings in trial courts only. The
records on appeal were, therefore, treated as open
to minutest objections and judgments were re-
versed and sent back upon procedendo, for the
slightest defects in any of the proceedings. The
pamphlet continues (page 60),

The writer of these pages, well knew a gentleman, now no
more, who had the reputation, and in his way, well deserved
it, of being a very able lawyer. His mental vision was essen-
tially microscopic. It was astonishing how attenuated his ob-
jections sometimes were—perhaps more astonishing how fre-
quently the courts sustained them. It was said of him with
entire truth, that he spent his whole life in defeating justice.
He was a great terror to all classes of suitors, and hence his
reputation for great ability. In the Court of Appeals, his op-
ponent was never safe against his minute and searching scrutiny
of the record. He would even count the names of jurors, to
be sure that there were the even number of twelve. And once
reversed a judgment because the name of one of the panel had
been accidentally omitted. It was not until the year 1825 that
the mischievous industry of such men was deprived, by the act
of that year, [chapter 117] which provided that neither party
in the Court of Appeals should be permitted to insist upon any
point or question which did not appear, from the record, to
have been presented to, and decided by, the court below.

The statute is a familiar one frequently applied at
this day, of course, and is the foundation of the
rule that even instructions requested for juries
should not be too general, that is, should be suf-
ficient to make it clear in each case that the point
made on appeal was before the trial court. It
brought the court back to its true function of a
court of review, to which it might have been con-
fined without a statute. The principle had been
applied in equity cases without a statute.²³

23. Ringgold's Case, 1 Bland, 5, 14.