Maryland independent. [volume] (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1874-current, 1881-05-27
Tha CiTlnit Canrt.


g7 90 be thought If those bibuIously in
ls cIlned sampled IIuuu's ana then Snoot'
suashes, whilst the Crane jury war
n hard at work up stairs, trying b break
,e up The liquor traffic by presenting ever,
r., retailer ia the county for allowing h9uo.
o. go be drunk on their premises. Y .Syiuf-
g dy C1se Of State us John /. Proctor
indicted for stealing hog property Of
JOS !. Ward was tried. Tile erid nee
of the State did not, III TIE opinion 81
Judges Ford aud Chew. who alone were
e on the bench, constitute larceny, mas
much as 10 only showed an accidental
IF killing Of the hog. and subsequent CON
cculmcnt. Even this testimony Of the
g, State was iinpsachcd aud strong case
Of ulibi, and a most excellent character
for traycrs,r was made out He was ac-
. quilted Elclen iordetcuse. The case
of Jas y. LatiuerS adm's vs. County
Commissioners wis theu taken up This
was an action brought to recover the
value Of material u-cl by tie road SUI
peryisor in the construction Of the ia.
NOUS dam at AEcu', Ercsh. which had
to be afterwards removed Verdict for
plaintitffor S59,7j Posey f3rplaindG
Brent for defense
Hm3y Case Of State v Robey in
dictcl for adultery, and leul c)dlbjta-
tion with Mary Williams was taken up
and disposed Of in short order The
marriage record having ben lost, the
State was unable to prove The marriage
II thetravcrser, except by his wife who,
the Court Of Appeals blye recently de-
ciIed, was not comp,teut witness for or
against the hu band, and therefore the
prosecution bad to be abandoned Edeleu
and Mudd for defense. Matthews for
State Case Of State VS. Aaron Jackson
Indicted for the murder of Enoch Da cher.
both co.orcd was then called MP and
submitted to the Court without jury
a mass of testimony was taken to show
ON the one side "a deliberate shooting
, whilst on the other it was sought 10 be
shown me gun had accidenuy gone 81
causing the death OF Catcher Matthew'S
for state. } II. Mitchell and Wilmer
for defense
TarMiy The evidence in the muir
der case was continued until about two
It'll -
''"'N "'''', '"G'''J' P'o','",' ~ a. 'e
,Ie c'sc UP :" Jug 'oG' u aul 2"'"i''ei''.
D'''',s ''e 9'9' 'i''5 ','e : '"r JV'9 0o',
with the thanks Of the Court. During
their session they have examined 50
witnesses and brought down 81 indiat-
mcuts, - Of which were against retail
,fs f,r aN.uinu Jiouar IN H. drunk np
w. ~" ''' '7 go N-'
thcIr promises. Before adjournment
the Grand imy made tl:c following re-
mort:
..\ynthe GRAND iur,r. Of Charles Conn
+, I.v;n n.,..',.I H., i,iI ..,3 nrc,,,i-
,.s,n.tf,.a,. r.,,..., a.. !..,,l,.
..,l,,iah II. t,.'s,,ao ,nl c..,,,.nJ H..
.a..r NJ, WI. r...l;,' ~.
.a,,i,'n ,'a.,o
'N'''' '" cay NV !, 1.... p....
,r... r..a Ilat '''9' - = '''..'
Ued"'S"dY. Inns morning the liquor
: eases were called uP lnere was quite
] number Of these eases ON the docket.
TIE grand jury having brought down
some 20 indictments against retailers Of
liquor "a hil'ies not ltSS "a 20
tor aIIo~lHs h4",r sold to be DRINK on
= 'ne premises '9oge M'gfuoor naa
7P'o'"''y 'n"i -" '"' Jury On 'nls Po'n',
~ W. az r( ', f '''g' ~ 'u' - "':o 'll''.
.'i''' N = \ o'a. ''A, ~ +, S"' : "'o'u-
~ wa, '''J e''9' ''' ms, w =" ''I5c'5
9 :, ..''a 'o"n 49, '-''o'y" pi,a.'t" ~
] s"!e' s'' ,''u (.'g''. d demurrer G 10 III.
l ,',,'J''',gI, cl ".'ou ''g ''.t ~ +
d r''' ANU N'.'" '' Us ms 0'''-
s,o" "a ''I ''''' ~ ',' ~ .,'', a. J'',1
~ I"I "oNNo y H''l''N "'lu5 uis" aHa