at annapolis before revolution 47

of many of Daniel Dulany's opinions, and they
are found in some profusion through the first two
reports. In 2 Harris & McHenry, 366, there is an
opinion of John Hall's, and 4 Harris & McHenry,
101, contains opinions given the General Court in
1798 by William Pinkney and William Cooke,³¹
both of them leaders of the time; and the unpub-
lished records contain others by Daniel Dulany
the elder, James Hollyday and Luther Martin.
The common practice is probably shown in this
portion of the report of the Provincial Court case
of Nicholson v. Sligh, in 1772,³²

It appears, from the notes of T. Jenings, Esq., who was
counsel in this case, and of W. Cook, Esq., that the justices
present being at a loss to determine the points, desired that the
opinions of some of the gentlemen of the bar, not engaged in
the cause, might be taken; and thereupon the whole matter
was referred to James Hollyday and Thomas Johnson, Es-
quires, who were both of opinion that the fieri facias ought to
be quashed, assigning for the reason of their opinion, etc.

There can be no doubt of the truth of the tra-
dition of a bar of good professional training and
ability to argue and advise in Maryland during
the later as well as during the earlier provincial
period. We have the testimony of Harris and
McHenry, in their preface, to the superior abili-
ties of some of the lawyers whose notes and opin-
ions were then buried under piles of old papers.
The opinions given by Daniel Dulany, the younger,
have long confirmed his traditional rank as the
leading lawyer of the period. William Pinkney,
after his return from his diplomatic career abroad,
said that even amongst such men as Fox, Pitt, and

31. Died 1817, aged 71 years.

32. 1 Harris & McHenry, 437.