at st. mary's 15

some of our judges and some of our juries (which for want of
knowing and more conscientious men must of necessity be made
use of) do oftentimes judge according to the affection or disaf-
fection they have for the person plaintiff or defendant, and not
according to the merit of the cause or the law that arises upon
the pleadings thereof. This I should not have the confidence to
aver, had I not been an eye witness and a hearer of matters
which make it evident.

And the experience was not unique; Dalton said
in the dedicatory epistle to his "Country Justice"
that he was moved by similar experience to pub-
lish the book; and as far as a dignified guide be-
speaking always a lofty conception of the judicial
calling might check the human weakness thus dis-
played, Dalton's book must have accomplished it.
But, to repeat, the men who were called to preside
over the courts in provincial Maryland were able
to pass judgment upon questions of law to an ex-
tent that would now hardly be thought possible for
laymen. We find, for illustration, in a case in
1697, not reported, that the Governor and Council,
seven in all, rendered separate opinions on a ques-
tion whether a man who had been released on a
supersedeas bond to the Sheriff of Talbot County
could be taken in execution by the Sheriff of Anne
Arundel County. Three held that the court
could not take cognizance of the petition present-
ing the question, and the other four divided on the
effect of the supersedeas and validity of the sub-
sequent detention.

During the seventeenth century, and indeed dur-
ing most of the history of the court, the council-
lors received no separate salary for their judicial
work. They held several offices from which fees
and perquisites were received. From 1671 to