Early Maryland County Courts  xxxiii

        Runaway servants were usually rewarded with a severe whipping by their
       masters, but if brought into court thrice the number of days they had been
       absent could be added by the court to their time of servitude. An incident
       which came before the Charles County Court at the January 12, 1664/5, ses
       sion shows that the justices were not without a sense of humor. Three ser
       vants, one of them a chronic offender, Matthew Broune, were brought before
       the court on the charge of being runaways. The two others, a man and a girl,
       declared that “they went along with him for company “. The court then
       ordered that they “shall also for company sacke at the whiping post in the
       publicke yew of the Peopell” receive respectively nine and seven lashes on
       their bare backs as a penalty. Broune was more severely punished (p. 560).
       Failure of masters to deliver to servants the clothes, tools and corn to which
       they were entitled at the termination of their servitude by the “ custom “ and
       the law of the Province, were the cause of a number of suits against masters.
       There are cases in which masters sought to extend the term of servitude of
       those already bound by indentures, or contracts, by persuading them to sign
       extensions or new contracts. This abuse became so notorious that the Assembly
       in 1661 and 1662 passed acts declaring invalid all extension contracts, even when
       wages were provided for, that had been made during the period of servitude
       (Arch. Md. i, 409, 453). In the case of Joane Wilmot, whose master had
       “sold” her after the expiration of her legal servitude and while she was work
       ing on one of these extended contracts, the Charles County Court, February 3,
       1663/4, declared her to be free (pp. 443-444).
        That the fate of many servants at this period was a deplorable one is made
       plain by a reading of these proceedings. The number of suicides which occurred
       among them is very significant. Inquests held over the bodies of servants who
       showed evidence of brutal beatings, raised the question in several cases
       whether death was due to natural causes, or was the result of blows inflicted by
       masters. In one instance a young servant boy in attempting to escape from
       a master bent on administering a whipping, plunged into the river and was
       drowned; according to the jury this was a case of suicide (Arch. Md. liv, 360-
       362). In another instance a boy was so neglected by his master that the court
       declared that the “voyce of the People Crieth shame thereat” and gave him his
       freedom (p. 410).
        There will be found scattered throughout these court minutes a number of
       cases in which individuals, not bound either by indentures or by action of the
       county courts, had entered into agreements or contracts to work for a specified
       time and wage, where disputes as to the amount of wages due by employers
       resulted in suits before the courts for their recovery.
         Disputes between masters and apprentices also found their way before the
       court. Not only the duration of the apprenticeship might be at issue, but
       neglect in the care of the apprentice might be complained of. An interest
       ing case to be referred to later was one in which a chirurgeon's apprentice com
       plained that he was not properly dressed for his position in the world (pp. l,
       413).

         The story of Sarah Taylor, a servant in the family of Thomas Bradnox,
       one of the justices of Kent, and her sufferings under a brutal master and mis-






       3