38 court of appeals of maryland

shall carry all the goods of such plantation loaden on board her
to some other of his Majesty's English Plantations, or to
England, Ireland, Wales, or the town of Berwick upon Tweed,
and that every ship which shall take on board any of the goods
of such plantation where she shall come before such bond be
given or certificate produced that such bond was given in Eng-
land, Ireland, Wales or the town of Berwick shall be forfeited
with all her guns, &c.

And the breach assigned against the said John Blackmore and
his said ship Ann was that he had taken on board eighty hogs-
heads of tobacco before he gave such bond as was required by
the said law. Whereupon (to salve the said breach) was pro-
duced a bond wherein the said Blackmore's name was mentioned
but neither signed nor sealed by him but signed and sealed by
one Thomas Tench; and then the question was whether that
bond was a sufficient bond within the letter of the said clause
of the said statute, and that question being a mere question of
law, and by law not determinable by a jury (Quia ad questionem
juris non respondent juratores;) the jury having taken upon
themselves the determination thereof contrary to that rule and
maxim of law, who are only to try matter of fact, renders
their verdict vicious especially when they have mistaken the
law in the point in adjudging a bond sufficient according to the
statute, which in law is not so, therefore the judges ought not
to have given judgment upon the said verdict and in doing
thereof have erred, therefore their judgment ought to be re-
versed.

The judgment is erroneous in this that in the entering up
thereof it is only said, Therefore is considered by the court
here that the said Edward Randolph who as well &c. take
nothing by his information aforesaid but be in mercy for his
false clamor, and that the said John Blackmore go thereof
without day, whereas to make the entry right and free from
error (as may appear by the Book of Entries) it ought to be
made thus, It is therefore considered that their said Majesties,
and the said Edward Randolph who as well &c. take nothing
by the said information. Therefore for want of a right entry
the judgment is erroneous.

It is error in this that in the said judgment it is said and the
said Edward in mercy, whereas he being their Majesties' chief
officer of their customs in this province, &c. the information