Introduction.               li

    with him a similar letter from the governor of New York, and to receive, in
    addition to the cow and calf, three hundred pounds of pork for his services.
    Although Jones did not deny that Bennett had carried out his part of the
    agreement, he filed through John Morecroft his attorney a demurrer on the
    ground that Bennett did not state in his declaration, as the law required, that
    he had been to Delaware Bay (p. 121). One regrets that the court threw out
    the suit on this technicality and that Bennett had his journey for nothing. This
    is a typical example of the legal technicalities which Morecroft seems to have
    introduced into Maryland court practice.
      There were certain legal restrictions against indentured servants engaging in
    business. Colonel William Evans, one of the justices, asked damages for him-
    self of one hundred pounds of tobacco from John Foxhall, and a fine of one
    thousand pounds of tobacco to the Lord Proprietary, because Foxhall had had
    business dealings with one of his indentured servants, contrary to the act of
    the Assembly forbidding this. The court at its October, 1668, session awarded
    these damages and imposed the fine (p. 125). In a suit for debt which came
    before the court at its February, 1668/9, session, the defendant Francis Gunby
    sought to avoid payment on the ground that he was an indentured servant
    when he had given his bill obligatory to the plaintiff Peternella Chivers, thus
    claiming the benefit of the Act of the Assembly forbidding servants under
    indenture from entering into business transactions. The court decided “that
    the plea by the sd Francis in Barre is not sufficient in law”, because his attor-
    ney did not join in demurrer in due time. Judgment was given for the plain-
    tiff (pp. 423-424). That the provision in the Maryland law forbidding ser-
    vants from engaging in business might he circumvented by the master is to be
    seen in a power of attorney granted by the Attorney-General William Calvert to
    his servant Robert Simmons to buy and sell with all the liberties pertaining to a
    freeman when acting under the orders of his master (p. 426).
      Difficulties with runaway servants frequently came before the courts. The
    following case doubtless came before the Provincial, rather than the county
    court, because the penalties involved represented services valued at more than
    3000 pounds of tobacco. In this case of Matthias Decosta against his runaway
    servant, William Loveridge, it was shown to the court at its October, 1666,
    session that Loveridge had been absent three months and eight days. The court
    thereupon ordered that he should serve out not only his original term of ser-
    vice but an additional term of ten days for each day he was absent, according
    to the act of the Assembly. This added thirty months and twenty-four days
    to the term of servitude, the equivalent of a considerable amount of money
    (p. 129). In the somewhat similar case of Robert Jones vs. Robert Davies, his
    servant, the latter declared that he was not a runaway as he had been sold by
    his master by a letter of attorney to another master in Virginia. A penalty of
    additional service by Davies to Jones was ordered by the court, with the proviso,
    however, that if Davies proved that he had been sold by Jones, the latter was
    to make satisfaction to him (p. 130). A suit for damages was brought at the
    February, 1667/8, court by James Humes, represented by his attorney, John
    Morecroft, against Henry Robinson and his wife, Dorothy, represented by