The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1859-08-26
IA w INTELLHENCE.
[ Reported for the DaiIy Erchanqe. I

TowsoNrowN, Aug IS, 1859.
CIRCUIT CoURr FOR BALTIMORE CoUNTY.-Before
Hon. Judge Price. Richard j. Cuttings, ESQ,
Attorney for the State, prosecuting.
State rs. John Woots, indicted together with
Daniel Woots, George Hough, John Tracey, OF
James, and Peter Tracey, of James, for assaultinr
and beating Jesse Brock and Lewis Brock, on the
5th of December, 1858, while attending divine wor-
ship on the above day, in the county.
Lewis Brock, sworn.-knows John Woots: on
the 9th OF December went to church after service
witness and others started for home; John Woots
followed them, and on being told to go back,
threatened and struck witness on the side of
the head; the blow knocked witness across the
road; lanes Woots then kicked witness; at the
time witness was on his way home, in company
with his father mother, sister, brother, and grand
mother; previous to the assault committed by John
Woots on witness, John Tracey struck witness bro
ther at the church; no words had passed between
the parties previous to the assault
The above witness is boy, some fifteen wears OF
age, and the party on trial man great muscular
strength
Jacob Brock, father to the previous witness
sworn.-Was present at the church; during SER
vice the two " Woots, Hough and Traceys made some
disturbance at the church, and made use of oaths;
witness and another member AFTER service spoke
of the conduct of those young men; John Woots
and his party heard them and came up when wit
ness son proposed to start for home; they did so
and Woots and his party followed them and as
saulted both witness and his son: witness and the
prisoner formerly belonged to the same church,
and the prisoner brought charge against witness
yet witness holds no animosity against the pris-
oner. rl.
Edward Koahler, for the defence, gave the pris-
oner good character, and testified that on the
above night he was present at the church and saw
John Woots come out of the church and ask Brock
crowd to make less noise, for the church had
strenuous rules and would carry them out. This
Witness on occasion, had "a little brush" with
Lewis Brock, and would not believe him on his
oath.
VIM. II. Hoffman, sworn.-Has known the pris-
oner for II or Is years, and gave him good char
acter for truth and yeracity.
Justice Aulbon testified that Jacob Brock called
on him for a warrant for the arrest of Jno Woots
but only desired that Woots be held to keep the
peace. The Justice also gave the prisoner a good
character.
The case was here submitted to the iury-the
State abandoning the count against the accused for
assulting Jesse Brock but asking for verdict for
assauting Lewis Brock. Verdict "guty"
Messrs. Boarman and Norris for the defence
In the matter of the ha5eas corpus in the case of
Cassandra Royston, widow of Moses j. Royston, u.s.
Robert Royston and others, brought to recover the
possession OF certain children of. Mrs Royston and
previously reported, the Court reviewed the argu-
ment of the respective counsel. In the course of
his remarks, the learned Judge said, careful ex-
animation of the authorities brought him to
the conclusion that an error of the Orphans
Court, in improvidently appointing guar
dian, could not diveSt father of his rights
phans' Court would undoubtedly, upon application,
revoke the letters of guardianship granted to the
mother under an impression that she was widow
The Judge intimated that, under some circum-
stances, Court would consult the wishes of infant
children as to whom they pr eferred to reside with
In this case the Court would concur in the wishes
of Sarah, the eldest GIRL she being intelligent and
over fourteen years OF age, and would, therefore,
remand her to the custody of Mr.. Baublitz, with
whom she now resides. AS to Cecilia, the younger
girl, who as placed by her father in the custody
of her grandfather, with whom she now resides the
Court could see no good reason for disturbing it,
She was construcVely in the custody of her father
and the current of decisions would not au-
thorse the Court to remove her from such
custody; she would, therefore, be remand
ded to the custody of her grandfather. The case of
John NJ. Royston, the Youngest of the children,
stood upon different grounds. At his tender wears
he would seem to be best off under the care and
protection of his mother. The Court would there
fore, deliver him into the custody of his mother
who, it was to be hoped, would affectionately care
for him and properly bring him up.
The Court ordered that each party paw their own
COSTS
X. j. Cuttings, ESQ.,, for complainant, and Wm
7. Preston, Esq, for respondents.
The mother, who had been deserted by her hus-
fed on the Court restoring to her her youngest
and, probably, most beloved child. . ....
David Woots, charged with the same offence as
that of John Woots, Tor assaulting Lewis Brock,
ana reported ABOVE, was submitted to the Court on
the same evidence, elected in the case of his
brother John. Verdict "guilty."
/. James Brown, of the county, charged with an
assault and battery, held to bail in the sum of
$500 for his appearance, Mr. Jesse Klinefelter, of
the city, becoming his security, Mr. Williams re-
marked that his client was worth 100000
Judge Price.-"Then he will be able to pay
good fine.' sH4 sss s-.- =
3 Mr.. Wiliams,-.'May it please your Honor, l
think if you come to investigate the charge there
will be no fine to pay. e-.t. s..t m.
John Gambrill, David Houck and James Morgan,
were brought into Court upon three bench-war-
rants each; one for riot one for assault with intent
to murder and the other for entering the dwelling
Of ~ Hartze of the county, to maliciously destroy
effects. In the assault with intent to murder, the
Court fixed the bail at $1,000 each, which was
given, Frederick c. giving security for all
three. In the other ind ctments the Court fixed
the bail at $500 each, the same party entering.
John and David Woots, convicted for common
assault on Lewis Brock, we're each fined $5 and