The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1869-08-07
Potomac Ratlroad Company-suits
In the CIrcuit Count OF Prince
Georges County.

,ef0rc Hon. u. II. Magruuer, associate Juuge, ,
Il cases growing out OF objections to the
Of the inquisitions Of Jurics
or the condemnation of lands for the use OF
he Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Com
ANY In Prince Georges county. In the
,ase Of John J. Lacy, the objections to the
Of the inquisition were
1. Because an officer OF the company fur-
lishcd the sheriff list Of names OF persons
Tor jurors, and the sheriff summoned some
II the persons so named, and some Of them
served on the panel.
Q. Because some Of the jurors were selected
by the deputy Of the sheriff, and not by the
sheriff himself.
3. Because the jury did not make proper
allowance for fencing.
4. Because the Jury did not allow for the |
expense Of maintaining the fencing rendered |
necessary.
5. Because the sheriff did not allow the
attorney for the defendant to open and con- |
clude In the proof and argument before the
jury.
As TO the first objection, the court, In
giving It's opinion, decided that the simple
fact OF their names being furnished to the
sheriff did not disqualify these persons as
jurors, for II II could, II would DO only neces-
sary for person interested to furnish the
sheriira list of persons he wished excluded
from the jury, and thus, under the pretext
of having them selected, secure his object of
having them excluded. The object In fur
nshing the list appears to have been for the
purpose Of informing the sheriff as to num-
Der Of persons who were not stockholders,
and to enable him to make a selection of
jurors who would not be liable to objection
on the ground Of interest. As the furnish
ing of this list had no effect, II cannot be
ground for setting aside the inquisltlon.
As TO the second objection, the court said
that Il appeared from the evidence that two
or three Of the Jurors were selected by the
deputy of the sheriff. Upon some objection
being made to the panel, the sheriff dis
charged the panel, and then summoned
| them on the spot again. The form OF dis
charging Jury and summonlng them again
did not cure the defect. 1t was still the act
Of the deputy, although ratified by the
| sheriff.
As to the third objection the court stated
that the testimony upon the subject was not
very clear. 1t does not appear that the jury
made an allowance for the expense Of
making such fencing as they considered was
rendered necessary by the construction Of
the road. II they had clearly made an esti.
mate for this, their judgment would not be
lightly disturbed, because the court would
assume that the jury had the best opportu.
nifty of forming correct Judgment In the
premises, and therefore whenever II appears
that the jury have taken into consideration
a particular item Of damage and allowed
therefor, their judgment In the matter would
ordinarily prevail.
As to the fourth objection the court dc.
cided that as the proof showed that the Jury
did not conclude that no fence was neces
sary, but did consider II necessary to allow
| for such a fence as they saw on the place,
| they were bound to allow for the necessary
expense Of keeping the fence In repair.
| As to the ifth objection, the court decided
that when the jury have considered and
allowed for each item of damage, the mode
| In which they reach their conclusion Is q
matter Of no moment. OF course, IL the
award Is grossly Inadequate or grossly ex'
cesslvc, 1t will be set aside-bat In the alb
sence Of any such proof the mode In which
the proceeding Is conducted can have nc
effect whatever.
Judge Magruder then said that the injunc
ton must be set aside and another one or
dered. In stating the principles which should
) govern the jury in making their award, h
, said:
, ''The one general principle covering tn
whole case Is that the company should pa
the owner for the actual damage inflicted b
. taking his land for the construction of tn
) road; and the charter gives no power /
offset the benefits resulting to the owner fror
, the building Of the road. The company arc
: therefore, TO pay him for the actual lnjur
inflicted on him. This will embrace:
81. An allowance for the actual value o
! the land taken at the time Of the assessmen
from whatever causes resulting.
: SO. An allowance for the expense Of erect
; ing such fencing as is rendered necessary b
i the construction Of the road.
"3. An amount sufficient for the cXpen;
t of keeping the fence In repair and maintalt
ing and keeping up the same In perpetuity-
l. which would be n sum OF money the interei
:. on which would be sufficient to keep up an
maintain the fence in good order and repai
g. ~. An allowance for the actual injury {
|, damage resulting to the owner by the pa
o sage OF the road through his lands"
!, In another case Of j. j. Lacy for an II
n junction to prevent the company from actin
r on an agreement made by an unauthorizc
i agent In possession, the court sustained Il
Il injunction, and another jury Of linguistic
Il will be summoned.
l. In both of these cases the counsel for Il
Potomac Railroad Company, Daniel Clar
; ESQ.,, reserved the right to appeal to the cou
/, IN bans. (Chief Judge Brent and Assocla
e Judges Ford and Magruder.)
V Another case argued before the court VI
n that of Fielder Magruder vs.. The Daltlmo
!; and Potomac Railroad Company, In which
a bill In equity was filed and inJunction granite
q to restrain defendant from dlyertlng til
! course of a nataral stream called "BcavC
Dam Branch, in constructing Its road, Will
/ defendant In answer claims the right
L. divert said stream. Upon motion OF defcn,
5 ant to dissolve that luj junction., Judge Magrl
c der decided that within the limits Of u str
o of land siXty-six feet wide granted by
ID charter, and condemned and damages awar
N cd for Its use the company has the right
Il, use the land and the water course which
70 an incident and appurtcnance OF the land
I'd the construction and working OF It's roa
Beyond these limits II cannot 20. Fiudir
Is. therefore, that the injury complained
re arises from the use or attempt to use otl
cr lands of the complainant than those &C
II tanned in the grant, and that the grant CT
les not be constructed to give this right to I
on defendant, he is clearly Of the opinion Il
he no cause has been shown for the dlssolutl
nd Of the injunction. The injunction must
'r- made perpetual.
Is, The defendant's counsel, Mr.. Clarke, a
q reserved an appeal In this case to the cot
en- IL Jn,c.
ed SATIoSAL TEMPERANCE CONVENTION
large number of the most prominent tie
art perancG men in the United States Ia
I'd, united in call for national temperal
far convention to assemble In Chicago,
,cn Wednesday, September l, 1869, at II o'clo
lst n IN. In their call these gentlemen say:
ia, "Thc moral, social and political evils
intcmpcrancc, and the non-enforcemcnt
int the liquor laws, arc so fearful and prominC
cd, and the causes thereof are 30 intrcncl
1te ard protected by governmental author
Ice and party interests, that tho suppression
we these evils calls upon the friends of t
perance; and the duties connected W
de home, religion and public peace, demt
,ut that old political ties and associations 81
be sundered, and distinct political par
Fin with prohibition ofthe traffic in intoxlcat
he drinks as the most prominent feature sho
Is be organized.
&c "The distinctive political issues that Id
nj for years past interested the AmeriC
people are now comparatively uuimport
or fully settled, and In this aspect the Il
is auspiclous for u decided and practi
effort to overcome the dread power OF
liquor trade.
"Thc undersigned do therefore earnel
Invite all friends Of temperance and
enforcement of law, aud favorable TO dist
political action for the promotion Of
same, to meet in general mass convent
In the city of Chicago, on Wednesday,
lst lay of September, 1869, at IL o'clock