The aegis & intelligencer. [volume] (Bel Air, Md.) 1864-1923, 1883-11-16

| Mlchael d. wheeler, John w. Spencer,
| John ii. Hopkins Isaac Mcchem,
X. stump Smith, BENZ Standiford,
| VIM ID. Osborn, Daniel Smith,
| David V. St Clair Charles Steele,
| Amos j. DAY, Charles Never
| John DunnegUn Richard Sheridan
| j. Newton Scarhur, James Bevar d,
| VIM. Ayrcs, VIM II. Carroll,
| AOnHD Jarrett, Geo. w. Nandep rift.
| DR., }. T. Payne, james Il. White ford.
DR.. D. W. Hopkins.
Judge Walters delivered the following charge
to the Grand Jury;
NJ. Foreman and Gentlemen Off Grand Jury:
I am sure ! need not do more at the present
time than refer i'll Il general way to the import
ance of the duties which you are about to per-
| form. The Grand and Petit juries the Staiess
Attorney aud the JUDGES, all together, constitute
the Court-thc tribunal upon which depends the
just administration of the laws, the protection of
society and the security Of the individual.
Before any of us can he qualified to assume the
duties thus deVolYed upon us we are required to
take an oath, the general tenor of which is that
we will faithfully perform our duty in our sever
al stations. If one oath can be more solemn than
another, surely the most sacred and binding must
be that which man takes when he assumes the
duty of deciding questions involving the rights
| the liberty and the life of his fellow man.
Every time come TO charge Grand Jury am
more and more impressed by the wonderfully
comprehensive character of the oath which you
have just taken. The English language could
it is done so concisey: You are to present no
one through envy, hatred, malice or i'll will:
neither will you leave any one unpresented
through love- fear, fayoror affection, or any hope
| or promise of reward" Is there any human pas
sion or prejudice which you are permitted to take
with you into TIE jury room? No, your oath re-
quires you to divest yourself of all envy, hatred
| malice and i'll will of all love, hope fear, favor
and affection before you can be entrusted with
the rights the lives and the liberty of your fellow
men. Can you determine whether particular
law shall be enforced or ignored? Can you say,
| for instance, "although the evidence in this case
| is very slight and inconcusive. still we will make
a presentmcnt because the law is n good one and
it must be enforced and EXAMPLES must be
made" Or can you say, on the other hand, "the
evidence in this case is conclusive and the law
has certainly been violated but still as the law is
make So S yoT we %
says you shall present all things truly as they
shall come to your notice"
| | have said this much to YOU more especially
on account of the recent controversy in regard to
| the enforcement OF what is known as the Local
Option law "a controversy, as it seems to me- most
| i'll advised, most njudicUus and most harmful in
| its tendency The law is upon our statute books
and no power except the Legislature can take
from it or add to it. Ourduty is plain and simple
| and whether we will or will not perform that duty
is not debatable question, except by those who
| are themselves incapable Il approaching the
sanctty of an oath. Freedom Of speech and of
the press is Il valuable right, and one to be guard
| cd, but when it degencrutes into Il license which
aims to belittle the sancity of official oaths or to
| educate the public to believe that those who have
| sworn faithfully to administer the laws NAV or
can in effect, alter the laws then it ceases to be
| a protection of society and becomes its most
| dangerous enemy.
| attack, the ey it directly tends TO produce is in
| initely greater No matter how benehcent par
| ticuar law may be we can do without il much
| better than admit the idea that either Judge or
| jury can test law by any other standard than
| the constitution. If law adopted by the proper
authority is in accordance with the constitution
| 1t is absolutely good, If it is not in accordance
with the constitution it is absolutely bad. So far
as our duties are concerned there can be no de-
grees of goodness or badness. The idea that we
can adopt any other criterion must result in as
great an uncertainty in the administration of laws
| as IA
| Gentlemen. have not the slightest fear but
what you will examine into all violations of the
law with equal impartiality and will present all
thlngs truly as they come 10 your notice.. and
will leave to the proper tribunal the separation of
me Go9d laws from the pau, You nave me right
Attorney for such instructions or assistance rs
you may require.
AT the cal! of the docket the following entries
were made:
Gideon Jarrett ct al, ". Ezekiel Richardson |
trespass; three cases agreed. II. W. Archer aud
Williams for plaintiff, Farnands and $ Archer
for defendant
Gideon Jarrett vs. Amelia Hitchcock ct al. :: |
ejectmcnt agreed. II. W. Archer and Williams |
for plaintiff, Farnands for defendant
John G. McCausaud vs. james Forwood |
agreed. II. W. Archer for plaintiff, Stump for |
defendant
Gideon Jarrett ct al. VS.. John Clark trcspass
agreed. II. w. Archer and Williams for plain
tiifS, Farnands for defendant.
>. L We,
three cases; stet. Farnands for plaintiff, Van
Bibbcr and VIM. Young for defendants.
Same VS.. Same ct al; stet. Farnandis for |
plaintiff, Young for defendants.
+. ~ D. Hopper VS.. John ii. Serrcks; stet. |
Williams for plaintiffs
Granville Mclaughlin VS.. Andrew Boyle stet |
Maynadier for plaintiff, Archer II VanBibbcrtor
defendant. |
Citizens National Bank of Washington VS.. A. |
Il. Boone attachment; two cases stct. May |
| naIipr fnr nlointiT Archer a. NauRihhnr Ia 40 |
PENDANT
atSame VS.. L. S. Government Contracting Co. ; |
tachment; two cases. Stump for plaintiff, |
Archer II VanBibber for defendant. |
II. l.. lIanway u Co. vs. John II. and Sophia |
Cresmer; judgment Stump rplaintifs, will |
son for defendants.
Miranda Hollands exccutrix VS.. VIM. Smith |
son. Referred to 0. 5. Lee and Vim. Young |
Young for plaintiff, Farnandis and Lee for de
fendant.
Laura C. Jones VS.. VIM. IL. James and wife A.; |
judgment by default. Young for plaintiff
X. X. Vandivervs A. w. and j. P. Walker;
judgment confessed. Stump for plaintiff |
Hopkins for defendants.
Henry 5. Worth VS.. Allen j. Kelly; Judgment |
confessed j. NJ. McNabb for plaintiff, Williams
for defendant.
&. w. Buck 4 Co. VS.. VIM. l.. Mccain; judg- |
ment Stump for plaintiffs, IL. w. Archer, Dr.,
for defendant.
II. w. Archer, Jr., VS.. Lewis Ash and wife ;
Judgment. Robert Archer for plaintiff, ii. W. |
Archer for defendants.
On Tuesday the case of Dobbm VS.. Williams
was tried before the court, and verdict rem
dcred in favor Of the defendants. II. w. Ar
cher for plaintiff VIM Young for defendants.
The civil docket was again called, but no
cases being ready for trial, the petit jury was
discharged until Saturday, when appeal cases
will be taken up.
The following additional entries have been
made:
Charles W. Baker VS.. JAS A. Cunningham.-
Referred. Archer IL VanBibber for plaintiff,
VIM. Young for defendant.
llushizer& Larzelere VS.. VIM. GLADDEN.. Re
ferred Williams for plaintiffs, Hopkins and
VIM. Young for defendant.
Jas. s. Chenworth ys. John G. McCausland.-
Referred. Williams for plaintiff, VIM. Young
for defendant.
John R. Bolts g. Son VS.. Thos. Stockham's
executor; agreed. Gilbert for plaintiffs, Robin
son for defendant.
Smith u Wicks vs. Robert Forwood; judg-
meut by default for plaintiffs, for S62i.62 Will
lams for plaintiffs
Albert IL Bro. VS.. Bennett Osborn; off. Stump
for plaintiffs.
Mansbach Il Gump VS.. Il. Ii. Prigg; Judgment
by default. ii. w. Archer for plaintiffs
w. 8. Forwood VS.. N. W. $. Hays; Judgment
by default. Stump for plaintiff
r. X. Vandiver VS.. Jesse Burbank Judgment
by default. Stump for plaintiff.
The grand jury have already had nearly 100
witnesses summoned before them. The follow.
ing presentments have been made:
John Schmidt, for larceny of watch from
Joseph l. Waterman.
Same, for larceny of clothing from VIM H.
Waterman
Gustav Goethe, for larceny of saddle and har-
ness from Thomas s. Devoe and others.