xx Introduction.

a felon of himself and therefore a murderer. Accordingly, all his goods and
chattels, though not his land, were forfeited to the Proprietary. The Court
answered Browne's petition by ordering a legal trial of the rights of the Pro-
prietary, and suggested that the father imploy Christopher Rousby, George
Parker, Charles Boteler or Nehemiah Blakiston to bring the case into court
(Archives LXVII, 245). That was in April 13, 1678: nearly three years later,
February 18, 1681, Brown was still trying, and still unsuccessful. On that day
he told the Court that he had "a Cawse depending in this Hon^ble Court against
his Lopp the Lord Prop^ry, and all the Attorneys of this Court refusing to bee
your Peticoners Attorney ..... [he] humbly prayes this Court that hee may
have Councell and Attorney or Attorneys assigned to him to Plead in his
behalfe ..... Which being Read and heard &c^a Itt is ordered by the Court here
this day..... that Robert Ridgely and George Parker gentl Attorneys of this
Court bee ..... Assigned Councello^rs to the said John Browne to prosecute
for him the aforesaid accon against the Lord Prop^ry ..... (post, 411). It is
not known at this point why the attorneys all declined to prosecute for Browne,
nor what the attorney now directed to take the case did for him.

Garret VanSweringen, who kept ordinary in St. Mary's County, sued Josias
Fendall in the Charles County Court for accommodations received between
April 1676 and November 15, 1677, for which Fendall had refused to pay
(post, 198). Fendall got a nonsuit because of the statute of limitations. There-
upon, VanSweringen obtained from the Chancellor a writ of error, which came
to a hearing in the Provincial Court on October 7, 1679. Fendall prayed time to
answer until next court, May 15, 1680. At that time the justices "diligently
examined" the arrors alleged by VanSweringen against Fendall's nonsuit and
"Considered that the Judgment aforesaid for the Errors in the Record and
processe aforesaid bee Revoaked Adnulled and altogether held for nothing,
and that ..... Vanswearingen unto all things w^ch by occasion of the Judgment
aforesaid hee had Lost bee Restored, And that the said Garret Vanswearingen
Recover against ..... Fendall the sume of ..... [ 1809] pounds of tobacco for
his Costs", (post, 202). Fendall did not pay, and Van Sweringen got out a
warrant for his arrest. To this, the sheriff of Charles County returned Novem-
ber 23, 1680 that he had taken Fendall "but Cannot bring his body downe
as ... he was Commanded", (post, 313).

Sheriff Chandler had arrested him but could not bring him down! Most
unusuall! And why could he not ? Fendall was an active, self-centred rogue,
whose biography has never been written. Though he was at one time governor
of the Province, by the appointment of the Proprietary, he was no sooner in
office than he tried to undermine his benefactor. Later he was put on trial for
treason, and he was spared the death penalty after his conviction. He got off
with a fine and a prohibition against his voting or holding office (Archives
III, 408). Yet on at least two other occasions, the people of Charles County
either chose him a delegate or were "obstinately inclined to elect him", and the
Council of the Province had to warn them that they would only lack one of their
due number of delegates (Archives XV, 192-193) if they persisted. This was