The aegis & intelligencer. [volume] (Bel Air, Md.) 1864-1923, 1877-06-01

State VS.. Mrs. Maria Lyle, indicted fol
ill-treatment of a boy, 10 years old, named
Van Wilgis. This case was warmly con.
tested, lasted six days and resulted in the
jury bringing in verdict of not guilty
Hopkins for State, Stump and Young fol
defence.
State VS.. George o. Ford, indicted for sell
ing liquor to minors; jury trial not guilty
Hopkins for State, Stump for defence
State vs.. Ralph Washington; indicted fol
stealing $1,55 from the money drawer Of
Jonathan Ambler's store, Falston; Jury
trial; verdict guilty and sentenced to the
county Jail for one month.
State VS.. Ely Wells and Alphonso Swing
indicted for fishing pound nets in Bush river
demurrer to indictments filed, argued and
demurrer sustained. Hopkins for State, W
G. Scott for defence.
| State vs. Wm NJ Edelin, indicted for as.
sault tried before the Court and adiudged
not guilty. Hopkins for State, Ii. W. Ar
cher and VanBibber for defence.
The court in delivering ito decision said that
the evidence in the case was conflicting and
the doubts which necessarily arise must be
| given to the accused. That the public have
the right to pass and repass over the public
roads and to drive their cattle and other stock
over them. 1.-THE adjacent banks are injured
by cattle driven over the public road this, is
an injury for which the owners of the adoin-
ing property are supposed TO have been COM
pensated when the road was condemned. and
the fee simple owner has no right to COM
plain Of such injury. If the prosecuting wit
ness was simply passing along the road and
driving her cattle to pasture beyond where
Edelin, lives, at MIR. Amos's; then any forci.
BILE interference with her would be an MS.
sault. But the public has no right of pas
turing along the public roads against the
consent of the owners of the fee, and if hhe
prosecuting witness was engaged in pastur-
ing cattle along this road against the consent
of the owner of the adjoining property. that
is of the traverser, then the traverser had the
right to prevent such use OF his property by
employing the necessary force. According
to a portion of the evidence in this case the
conduct of the traverser was undoubtedly un.
justitiable and lie was guilty of an assault,
but according to other and apparently
equally reliable evidence he was simply ex-
ercising an unquesionable right and using
no unreasonable force. Under these circum.
stances there must be judgment of acouit.
tai.
DeCorms g. Co., VS.. Thomas G. and Alice
Archer: Judgment for plaintiffs, Young for
plaintiffs, Stump for defendants.
State vs. VIM. Gordon, colored; indicted
for assaulting his wife; jury trial; verdict
not guilty. Hopkins for State, Richardson
for defence.
The cases of the State VS.. Thimothy and
Mary Shields, colored, indicted for the for
gerry of the will of the late Mary Stephenson,
were continued, and the accused released on
$500 bail for their appearance at the next
November term of Court.
The case Of Franklin Smith and others vs.
Samuel r. Bolts and wife, being caveat to
the will of the late Alexander Smith, was
also continued.
The Criminal Docket was entirely cleared
with the exception of the Shields case, a
circumstance of rare occurrence.
The petit jury was discharged on Thurs
day.