The Baltimore County union. [volume] (Towsontown, Md.) 1865-1909, 1866-01-13
COUNTY ITEMS.


The MoUSr HoPE CAsEs.-In The Circuit Court
for Baltimore county, on the 9th inst, the cases
of the Statevs. w. B. Stokes, Physician and
Mary Blnkinsop, Superintendent Of Mount Hope
Hospital, in this county, came up for argument
on demurrer filed.
Mr. Cuttings began by reading the indictment,
which is formidable document consisting OF
some fourteen closely written pages. The tirst
part of the indictment, consisting OF about two
pages, charges the said DR.. Stokes and Mary Bin
kinsop with conspiracy to cheat and defraud, by
inducing persons having charge and guardian
ship of insane persons to send them to the Mount
Hope Hospital, representing it to be suitable
proper and we'll regulated hospital and tit for
the reception of insane persons and the latter
part of the Indictment charges that the said Mount
Hone Hospital is not well regulated, that the
rooms therein are low, that it is not under the
care and charge of proper and efficient persons,
but under the care of improper, inefficient, Who'll
ly untrustworthy and unfit persons, "Cy reason
that they icere Of the female ser, Of religious or
DER goperned by foreign priest, destitute OF prop,
erty, and as far as IN them lay, ciVitiy dead :" ana
charges that the patients in said hospital are not
properly cared for are lltreated in various ways,
by being confined, to straight-jackets, &C.; are
confined after they are fit and able TO go at large
and charges various acts of improper treatment
Mr.. Cuttings, in support of the position that
the indictment is not good in law, referred to va
rious decisions.
He made an elaborate and mastery speech of
several hours duration, and in conclusion said
that it had been admitted by one of the counsel
for the prosecution that the object Of this indict-
ment was not so much to punish the defendants
| in this case (Dr Stokes and Mary Blinkinsop) as
to overhaul the institution that this was an IL
| legal and improper manner OF attempting TO DO
so that the proper mode of so doing was by
writ O. scri tacids, and that the institution was
ready to meet the investigation, and that numer-
Gus letters had been received from many persons
formerly inmates of the institution, offering to
come any distance and testify that the facts charg
ed in the indictment are not true.
| Mr. Cuttings was followed by Mr.. Radcliffe IN
an able speech, on the part Of the State, who be-
gan by saying that, in his opinion, the whole
| case was contained in nutshell that much time
had been unnecessarily consumed, and that bis
speech should be very brief; that he supposed
Mr.. Cuttings had speech TO make, and tnat ne
must make it. Mr.. Radcliffe said there were but
two facts in the case first, whether the facts
charged constituted an indictable offence at COM
mon law and secondly whether those facts
were properly charged in the indictment with
that degree of certainty required in the law, and
contended that the indictment was good in both
particulars. Mr.. Radcliffe said he hoped, for the
| sake of humanity, the facts charged in tue lndlct
ment might not be true, but that it was due to
the public and due to the character of the insti-
tuition that an investigation should be had
| -~~>
INvALIDITY OF DEEDS, MORTGAGES, &c, ExEcU
TED BEFORE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE OUT OF HIS
| CouNTY-In the case of Johnston and others
against Candy and others, Tin equity, decided
in the Superior Court of Baltimore, Judge Mar
| tin held that a mortgage of property in Balti
more county, executed before G. w. Ritter, Esq.
Justice of the Peace of Baltimore county, at hi!
office in Baltimore city, and out of his territorial
| jurisdiction, was without acknowledgment OF
affidavit of consideration, and, of course void
also, that it was competent for the defense to Of
fer oral testimony to the fact of its execution in
Baltimore city. In order to render the decision
of the court clear to the public, we give the words
| of Judge Martin, as follows
"The real estate embraced by this mortgage
was situated in Baltimore county, and the paper
| contains the affirmation required by the ll2th
| section Of the conveyancing act OF 1856, chapter
| l54, but although the certificate as to the &C
| Acknowledgement of the mortgagor, and the attir
nation of the mortgage, was formal upon 1T
face and as of the penue of Baltimore county
yet it was open to the parties claiming against
the mortgage to show by parol evidence that i
was in TACT acknowledged in the city of Balt
| more before Justice of the Peace for Baltimore
county, and this being so, it is clear that the pa
per is to be treated as an instrument neither &C
| knowledged or recorded, as required by the &C
of 1856, chapter l54, and without the affirmation
as to the consideration demanded by the ll2tl
section of that statute"
This decision, if sustained by the Court of APP
peals, involves the title to property in Baltimore
county to the value perhaps of million OF dol
lars. In that case, the action of the legislature
could be invoked to pass a law to cure all defec
tive deeds, mortgages, &C., of property in Balti
more county, by legalizing the acts of Justic
Ritter, or any other county Justice, heretofore
performed in Baltimore city, and out of their ter
ritorial jurisdiction.