The Baltimore County union. [volume] (Towsontown, Md.) 1865-1909, 1884-11-29

Nov 21.-Court was in session and the follow
ing judgments were rendered, after trial before
the court A. Rosenthal & Son vs.. David n.
Stephens for defendant for costs. Same VS.
Rachel Stephens and David N. Stephens for plain
tiffs for S697.25 and costs, and Si1.07 costs of
protest as against Rachel Stephens, and for de-
PENDANT D. N. Stephens, for costs.
Nov. 22.-John b. Miller VS.. Franklin kone,
executions to final ratification of mOrtgagees re-
port of sale; argued and held sub curia. In the
matter of the sale of land assessed to Isaac D.
JONES' guardian, &C., for taxes for 1883, made by
j. Hartman Schone, treasurer and collector; ex-
ceptions to ratification sustained and sale set
aside
Nov. 24.-Dan F. BiIlmyer was before Judge
Yellott under writ of habeas corpus, directed to
the Warden of BALTIC. City Jail. After examining
the return of the warden to the writ and the copy
of the commitment under which Billmyer was de-
tanned in custody, the udge said to the solicitor
for the petitioner that he would like to hear him
on the power of the court to release from custody
a party imprisoned for contempt by court OF
competent jurisdiction. After listening to the ar
gument on behalf of the petitioner, Judge Yellott
decided he had no power to release the petition
er. he having been imprisoned for contempt by a
court of competent jurisdiction, which alone had
Jurisdiction in the matter, and he remanded the
petitioner to the custody of the warden OF the
CITY Jail Susannah Hall has been divorced a
yinculo matrimoni from her husband, Richard 5.
Hail.
Nov. 25.-Judge Fowler filed an opinion in the
case of Emma Freshman by her next friend, &C.,
VS.. Cumberland Dugan ct al, in which suit there
is involved the partition OF some ten acres Of land
in Druid Hill Park, upon which valuable
improvements had been erected by the city
authorities, being the pump-house for supplying
the CITY with water. The court stated that he
would only take up one of the many exceptions
taken by the city to the ruling ofthe commission
ers. After reviewing the case, the Judge contin-
ued as follows: at does not appear from any
thing in this cause whether the city knowingly
erected these improvements upon the common
land or placed them there by mistake, supposing
that the land covered by said improvements was
owned by it. However, whether the city acted
with knowledge or in Ignorance, cannot, IN my
opinion under the circumstances Of this case,
make any difference; for, in either event, it was
the clear duty of the commissioners, if they could
do SO without injury to the other tenants in com
mon, to allot to the city onehalf of the land, and
in addition thereto all of the improvements 1t had
erected thereon and paid for. But the commits
sioners testify in thersreturn that they have al
lotted the CITY exceptant less than one-third in
area and less than one-f fourth in value of said
land: and in order to make the portion given to
the city equal to the sum of the parts awarded to
the other tenants in common, the city is charged
with forty -eight thousand dollars (S4S,0OO) for
the improvements which already belonged to it.
Such partition, it appears to me, does not &C
cord with the principles of natural justice, and
certainly not with the established principles of
equity applicable to cases like the one in hand.
I will sign an order, accordingly, setting aside
the return of the commissioners, and directing
such further proceedings as may be necessary
and proper"