The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1880-05-18
NOT q Common BarratOr.
RyMARKABLE CASE BEFORE THE FREbaRlC
COUNTY C0URT-THE DECISION.

COUNTY C0URT-THE DECISION.
Especial to the Baltimore Americas.1
FREDERICK, May ls.-Perhaps the most
remarkable case that has ever occupied the
attention OF a Frederick county court came
In an abrupt conclusion yesterday in the
Cjrcvit Court, Judges Lynch aud Bouic
presiding. At the February term OF Court,
1875. DR.. Harrison Wagner, IT Woodsboro',
was indicted fer being "common bafTa'
t<T."
This il an offence so rare that the learned
counsel engaged in the case were unabie IN
all their researches to fud more thar ha'f
q dozen Instances reported in the books
within as many hundred years. The State
was represented by States Attorney John
G. Motter and Hon. Frederick j. Nelson,
and the defence By William p. Maulsby,
Jr., ard Hon. John Richie. Mr.. Nelson
made the opening statement for ahe prose-
GU ton, and announced that the State was
prepared to prove that the DESCENDANT had
brought innumerable actions against at least
fifty different persons In the county upon
purely fictitious causes OF action.
AS an instance, he said that before SIN
gle magistratc--Justice John A. Wilson, OF
Wolfs Wagner had instituted nearly
1000 suits, as many as 12e being against
liz al
a third, &c. Indeed, be had, said Mr.. Nell
lsop. provided Justice Wilson with large
blank block for special docket in which to
record these suits, and thet this docket-a
ponderous volume-wss filled with these
suits alone. Before Justice Eaton, OF Lewis
town, Wagner had instituted 500 suits
against q single defcndant-the Adams EX-
press Company-the only substantial
ground of action beins-if, indeed, there
was any-an injury to package OF glyce-
rine in the transportation, the damage
amounting TO few dollars. Before Justice
Cobleutz, OF MiddIetown, Wagner brought
some City more suits against different par
ties.
Not one OF these parties, said Mr.. Mel.
son, owed a single dollar 10 the prisoner
In many of these cases the defendants made
light Of the matter and failed to appear for
trial, so that Wagner obtained Judgments
by default. The amount of these iudg-
ments (which averaged about S95 apiece
was in the aggregate at least 100000. This
was the substance of the States case, which
they then, after brief opening in reply by
Mr.. Maulsby for the defence, proceeded to
establish by evidence.
The evidence bad Just proceeded beyond
the usual formal proofs, when the main
question:, a law point, was raised by the
defence. Testimony was offered to show
how many suits Wagner had brought be.
fore Justice Coblentz. 1t ,hen appeared
that all these suits were brought by
Wagner himself In his own name. The
defence then objected 10 any evidence OF
suits in WagDer's own name, on the ground
that common barratry, for which the pri-
soner was indicted, consisted not IN
bringing suits in ones own name,
but in stirring up suits among 9TH
ers and melting third parties to lit
igafion. To this point Mr.. Maulsby
cited Bacon's Abridgment, Burns's Justice,
Viner's Abridgment, and BOuyief's Dc
tionary, led. 1861 under the titles " Bar
rator" and " Barratry." In answer, Mr..
Nelson cited Coke Rep. ~, 10 Mass. 221,,
2 Bisb. CIR. L., sections $3.50, and Haw-
kn's =. c. CHI. 81, section 3, and contended
that the gist Of the offence consisted in the
vexations and oppression that excessive
litigation would cause-whoeyer might
bring the suit.
Mr. Richie, closing for the defence,
argued that when the prisoner was himself
the litigant, il his suits were groundless
and malicious, the law supplied sufficient
remedy by mulcting him In costs and rem
dering him also liable TO action for malicious
prose- uiion. That the law did not intend
to make IL au indlctable offence, except
when the offender attempted to escape all
civil liability by melting others to bring
suits instead Of bringing them himself.
The Court took the matter under advise
meDt and adjourned over from 7. NJ. to 4
p. NJ. On reSssembliDg the Court an
nounced its decision to be in defendants
(Wagner'sl favor.
This ended the case and the defendant
was DISCHARGED.