The Baltimore County union. [volume] (Towsontown, Md.) 1865-1909, 1880-05-22
THE BARRATRY CASE IN FREDERICK.

DR.. Harrison Wagner, Of woOdsboro', Frederick
county, Nd, was indictedin Feb. 1879, before the
Circuit Court Of that county, for being a common
barrator." This oacnsc Is recognized at common
Law, and is punishable by statue. Il implies. in
general aeecptation. the oacnse Of provoking 10
unnecessary litigation. The common barrator il
dealt with by the Law as common scOld H. be-
cause deemed n nuisance. Dr. Wagner. il was
shown. had brought nearly 1000 suits in his
county, chiefly, II was alleged. upon fictitious or
insufficient grounds Of action. aud this led to his
being indicted. Tho lawyers. however, when the
came g. trial. found that the prcccscnts were
90 rare that even the definitions of the ohcnsc
were defective the State claiming that the oicnse
consisted In the Vcxation growing out Of unncces-
sary aud excessive litigation the defense that
under the law the common haTTator was paTticu.
lar person. 60 wit, lawyer who set other persons
by the ears ia order 10 make business fer himself
The court decided that the prcpanIcrance Of
opinion was ia favor Of the latter view, aud the
ease was accordingly dismissed. II will be re
mcnbeTcd. perhaps that the late Count Joanncs.
who was lawyer rs well n a butcher Of Shaks.
pcarc, began his career at the bar ia Boston. lie
made himself, however, 50 obnoxious 10 the citi-
Icns Of that place by his suings aud his incite-
menis of others e. sue that he was indicted a.
u common barrator. aud literally run out 1T the
town IN order e. escape imprisonment aud tine.
u would he interesting To- know whether the Hos.
acts a. an individual or a. an ATTORNEY Some #
the legal small fry in this city. It l. pTababic
could be indicted for harrairy. even under tho
mos, technical Interpretation of the term. lfthey
could DC convicted after indictment Il would be
good radiance to the community for curb.tane
lawyers. like euTbstonc Law contribute very little
To the substantial Tcsoarcss OF Jurisprudence.
Bdhasvrs NHH.
This Frederick county ease l. a mos, remark Adj,
ons aHd for this give tho particulars.
with some later developments. a. follows;
Several years ago Dr. Wagner brought between
one and TIVE thousand. suits against different par
ties. IA amounts ranging from suu e. SIS. hen ia
Tact hc had ~ bona hic cause u action iu.i keep
tns sthtn the jurisdiction 1t a iu.ticc 81 tuc
peace. These rersou.. ,urposlns Wagner g. be
lAbonns under some dc!uston. PAID ~ attention
g. the sammoRsrs. anI Judgment vent again.t
them hy default The time "a Whleh an appoal
could br taken being exhausted 1. bf Wagner lie
clafcd Ia, intention Il having lc,tr. made uu l.r
h. Judgment. THIS aroused the defendant. anl
they hat hlm indicted ipF barfatfs. upon sht,h
charge hr va tried Anj acquitted. a. ha. been
stated year ~ ., aga wlliam >h4nk unc 4
the defendant, iici aHI 81. ,.tstc h4s Mt set
been CLOSED On lus.3A, q tbs. Nstk u Mas
her brought into coutt -. Jai smvu'. To- So, caeh
NTH o., costs Mounting iu the tEsfssai, Co pa.
go ~hleh hc h.I r,s.t et,i asatust o.. "
shanA uvutl n'I % As- ii,tluv auI Ashvl .st
they BE- rA..ei The uc.,..tft aG l.tt 10 tae
cicfA that tie JuIsmsn.. ~,,. af.a the I..,s,t
aLi that a. cn'N % .st..tatt. L4- h,-u i4a i.
-ti The ~ is'.' % t.r iivr'.1 t4at b, ha. lc
ert'cl iatus 'H 81. t't g. t t.ttvf 90 ah.l. 30
tn Iaf'. ~Vgs ~. in rrs..at t.ffn The ui4ft u
liberated tsr ole ta.r t4i it~t tec.Iri thar
lua'u4-h 3. Rec sisrai.a,fr ~ .cts .t t,..tf
lace ihe1 -.lI d.. .a.s, than q. f.sss them al
h.ush ties 'fm.t He.-,sl iar.. g., tc 40 .4st
AMI zee fvsi'''- -. .flefel @. q = them anlan <
other claims lsAiu.i sas y.tats Il these jais
n IL 81 % H..a.s