The aegis & intelligencer. [volume] (Bel Air, Md.) 1864-1923, 1884-05-30
-
COURT PROCEEDINGS

COURT PROCEEDINGS.
On Friday the case of the State vs.. VIM. Will
liams, a colored boy, for the larceny of S. from
Mr. Jacob Yarnall, railroad agent al Perrymans,
was tried before jury, resulting in verdict of
guilty. Maynadier for the State, Stump and
Young for the defence.
On Saturday the case of the State vs. John W.
Smith, colored, was called. The prisoner was
charged with assault with intent to kill his
mother-in-law, Hannah Matthews, by knocking
her on the head with club. After the evidence
was closed the prisoner plead guilty to common
assault and the case ended. Maynaaier for the
State, Robinson for defence.
On Monday John ii. Serricks, of Havre de
Grace was tried for violation of the local option
law. The State was represented by States At
torney Maynadier aud Hon. Henry W. Archer.
Messrs. Stump, VIM Young and Hopkins APP
peared for the defence.
Richard Kane testified that while living with
Mr.. Ricketts,, Of Boothby Hill, in July, 1888, he
went to Havre de Grace to get n drink. Visit
ing Serrlcks' bar room he called for drink and
the bar-keeper, Lou Walker, got long black
bottle from shelf and set it on the bar Wit
ness took drink of whisky and paid ten cents
for it. Mr.. Serricks was not present
MIR. Archer for the State then read the proof
on record in the Court of Appeals in a similar
case against Joseph Mackin, in relation to the
local option election and the proclamation
thereof, which was submitted to the jury by
agreement of counsel. This evidence, it will be
remembered, hinged upon the phraseology in
the local option law where the returns were or
dered 10 be made TO and the proclamation made
by the "Clerk of theCircuit Court Of Hartford
county," The title Of the said Clerk in the Con
stilution being CLERK of the Circuit Court for
Hartford county"
MIR. Archer after considerable objection from
the defence, read sections from the old Code in
which county court clerks are referred to indif-
ierently as Clerks 'of, )" "in" and 'for'' the
Circuit Courts. An objection was noted by the
defence.
A. F. Slymer and Heaton, for the defence, tcs-
titled that Walker left Havre de Grace in June
and did not return until September. Serricks
himself swore that Walker never was his bar
keeper. Kane, being recalled, said he might
have been mistaken as TO the month that he
might have bought the whisky in September
The Jury brought in verdict of "not guilty"
The case of Dr. Mortimer +. Brown, of the
second district, also indicted forselling whisky,
then came up. His counsel, Messrs. Stump aud
Young demurred generally to the Indictment, as
In the other cases, and for an additional plea
| ayerred that Dr. Brown is pharmaceutist and
pracIicing physician; that lie compounded and
manufactured the liquor alleged TO have been
sold, and bona fide prescribed it as physician
for medicinal purposes. The State demurrcd TO
the plea and Judge Waters sustained the de
murrer.
The same proofn regard TO the local option
| law, &c, as in the preceding case was given to
The jury from the record sent TO the Court OF
Appeals in the Mackin case
James Norrington, for the State, testified
that he called for and bought a pint of whisky
from Dr. Brown, at his place of business in
| Hartford county, some time since last Christ
mas. Dr. Brown keeps store aud apothecary
| shop, and distils liquor. Dr. Rowe told him
| to get the liquor for his child, who was sick
with measles. lie once before got whisky at
another place on written prescription from
| DR.. Rowe.
Cyrus Osborn, Amos Courtney and Rev W.
| W. Campbell testified that Brown is "A practic-
Ing physician, aud keeps store and an apothe-
| cary shop and dstils liquors.
| 1t was shown by j. Il. Ely, deputy clerk, that
DR.. Brown had a traders license in 1888 A
| blank traders license was exhibited, which
states that the sale OF liquor is prohibited under
| it,
| DR.. w. b. Rowe testified that Dr. Brown
practices medicine, Keeps an apothecary shop
and fills prescriptions. The witness prescribed
whisky once for Norrngton's child, the first
| visit he made, giving written prescription.
Norrington told him he got whisky from DIR.
Brown and was giving it 10 the child, not find
| ing Dr. Rowe at home.
Dr. Brown, the tfaverser, testified that he has
been practicing medicine during and since The
| war, and ever since; has no diploma, but is a
selfinade physician. In his 20 years. practice
| no one can say he ever did them any harm, but
many will say he did them good. Keeps an
| apothecary shop and fills prescriptions. Nor.
rngton said he had called upon DR., Rowe to
| get pint of spirits for his sick child, and upon
| his describing the child's symptoms he thought
he ought to let him have it, He prescribed aud
| sold it as medicine.
| Upon cross-examination DR.. Brown said he
| had written prescription for Nurrington, Sign
| ing it with his name, but had mislaid tho
| paper. He could not remember whether he
filled the bottle first and wrote the prescription
| afterwards or not DR.. Brown read AN adver-
| tsement from a county paper, IN which he of.
| fers drugs generally aud rye whisky five years
| old in particular.
| Norrington being recalled, said DR.. Brown
told him he would have to make II memoran.
DUN.
| The States Attorney then arose and said that
| from The evidence he could not press for con-
| dered.
| State W.. Mark Moore, cOlored, for violating
local option law. Mr. John f. Oldlicld testified
that he bought pint of whisky for so cents
| from Moore, at the stable of Sweets Hotel, Bel
| Air. and gave one-half of it To a colored man in
| his employ lie did not drink the remainder
but has il yet. File produced il in court The
case was argued for the State by Mr. Maynadei
and for the defence by Messrs. Stump, Young
aud Dozen. The jury failed TO agree in thi:
case Eleven for conviction and one tor acquit
| tai.
State against Andrew Slymer for violation o
the local option law. Jury trial, not guilty
Maynadier for the State Hopkins, Young and
| Stump for the defence.
The case Of State VS.. VIM. l.. Cooley, charged
with assault upon Joseph Mackin, was settled
| Mackin admitting that he made the first adyenct
upon Cooley, paid the costs aud the case wal
| dismissed.