The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1872-01-20
EIkton Building Society.-Money sold


/ was held the same night to act upon the
report of committee appointed at pre-
vious meeting to report on changing the
/ by -laws of the Society, in order to remove
the restrictions which limited Il stakeholder
from borrowing on more than ten shares in
! one year This restriction was repealed
! The laws of the Society, as originally
adopted, and rs they now stand, allow
withdrawing member only the amount of
/ money he has paid into the Society, which
is provirion so obviously unjust, that the
committee reported in favor of repeating
| this section, and substituting in its place
one emitting withdrawing stakeholder to
a share of the earnings of the Society
amounting to twenty-five per cent. of the
| amount paid in at the end of four years
| from the commencement of the Society
The Society having been in operation forty
| eight months, there has been paid on each
share S4e, and in addition to this amount,
which is the accumulation from dues, the
earnings of the Society have been $32 per
share, making the present value of the
! shares $50 each; or the assets of the
Society, secured principally by mortgages
! on real estate, are, in round numbers,
$50, OO0-the stock of the Society being
! divided into one thousand shares. The
committee proposed to modify the bylaws
of the Society, so as TO allow withdraw
| ing stakeholder reasonable proportion of
the earnings of his stock, which they fixed
at 25 per cent, at the February meeting;
which, in case this clause had been adopted,
would have entitled a member who pro-
| posed to withdraw at the February meet
! ing, to $50 on each share of his stock
| Allowing this liberal interest on the amount
invested. would have still left to the Society
the greater profit of $50 per share addi-
! tional earnings by the stock of the with
| drawing member. In addition to this per
| centage, one per cent month was pro-
posed as the proportion for future with
drawals. This proposition, so evidently
Just to every stakeholder, created consid-
cradle opposition, and an animated discus
sion sprang up among the members. which
resulted in a postponement of the question
! till the annual meeting in April The
opposition to the proposed measure seemed
! to arise from a misrepresentation of the
/ question, from not having carefully consid-
cred it in all its equitable features. If a
stakeholder desired to sever his connection
with the Society, in the event of the new
provision becoming part of the bylaws,
while it would probably be great advan-
| tage and pecuniary convenience to him, it
would be of still more advantage to the
remaining stockholders, in the matter Of
increasing their stock in value. If from
the one thousand shares Of stock compoS
| ing the Society, among which the eighty
! thousand dollars now invested, is divided,
one hundred shares are withdrawn and
Cancelled, the nine hundred remaining
| shares will be worth ninety dollars each,
which would be an appreciation of each
share ten dollars. This is considerably
| more than the amount of money required
| to cancel one hundred shares of stock. if
/ loaned at the premiums money has been
selling for, and which it is most likely to
sell for in the future, would add to the
value of the stock, with all of the thousand
shares remaining uncanceled.
! The proposed change in the bylaws
recommends itself to favor in a two-fold
manner: first as simple measure of JUS
tice to the retiring stockholders, and as a
! pecuniary advantage to the Society; and
/ when members examine and clearly COM
/ prehend the proposed amendment, it is
serious opposition. The future rate of per
centage proposed by the committee is pro-
badly too high. and, perhaps, a fixed share
of the net earnings, in place Of a per cen
tage, would be the better scale to adopt.
AS this is a very important measure, and
every month increases its Importance, it is
to be hoped that every member will give it
4 careful examination, and be prepared to
act and vote intelllgently, when the ques-
ton comes up at the annual meeting in
/ April
I Court Proeeedings.-The Circuit Court
remains in session yet. The following
cases have been tried since our report last
4 week:
/ State rs. Henry Hughes, tcolored.j In
dicted for the larceny of pocket book,
! containg fifty seven dollars, the property
of William V. Moore, in September last
Tried before the Court and verdict of guilty.
+ c. Mccullough for State; II. Mccullough
and Alexander Evans for prisoner
State rs. John Kirk. Indicted for OBJ
structing the public road near Ebenezer NJ.
E. Church, on the road from Charlestown
to College Green, by turning the water
upon it from its natural channel Tried
before a jury and verdict of guilty \
motion for new trial was made, but after
wards Withdrawn, and the defendant fined
five dollars and costs. c. Mccullough and
Constable for State: Jones & L. ~ Hanes
for defendant.
John Piser rs. William NJ. Stewart.
Appeal from Esquire Howard. Action
upon balance on Il due bill. Tried before
jury, and verdict for Piser the PLAINTIFF
for $64.1G. Jones for Piser: Constable for
Stewart.
/ Isaac S. Deford rs. Oliver B. Logan
| Appeal from Esquire Brown. Action upon
an account for work done and material
furnished. Account in bar pleaded. Tried
! before a jury and verdict for Deford for
! 1902. Constable for Deford; H. McCul-
Tough for Logan.
| John Sewall cs. Henry Hughes. Appeal
from Esquire Howard. Action upon an
account for work done and materials fur
nished. Account in bar pleaded. Tried
before the court and Judgment for Sewall
for 1881. J. T. Mccullough for Sewal;
/ Constable for Hughes.
| Samuel W. Winchester rs. Oliver Brown,
colored. An action for damages sustained
by the Plaintiff by reason of the defend
ant stopping up the course of spring of
water running through the defendants
land. Tried before jury, and verdict for
the plaintiff for S. damages. W. S. Evans
and, Constable for plaintiff; Jones and l..
NJ. Haines for defendant.
William McNamee rs. Margaret Currin
der and Jas. H. Ray. An action of eject
ment to try the title to certain real estate,
situate in Elk Neck. From the testimony
it appeared that certain Ellen Batten,
sister of the plaintiff and of the first
defendant, made a will, leaving her prop
errty to the defendant, with the exception
eff small legacy to the plaintiff, and
q