Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1885-01-09


thiscommunity 10 be the editor Of the Sentinel.
But the ear marks in said editorial do not point
TO him as its author. His graceful style is 100
well known to be COMPOUNDED with this par
ticular editorial Besides it is only just 10
him TO state that have never known him, in
speech or writing, to deal in defamation. He
did not write the said libelous editorial, nor
the paragraphs referred 10 above ] ask,
Who did The last paragraph of said editorial
! is follows, viz: "Prior to June, 1885, Dir Pref
lyman had charged 30 cents TO the party for in
dezing(italics mne) each deed. Since that time
he has charged As cents for inde1ing each deed ,
when his charges should nave been only II
cents for each ten words. Nine-teuths of the
deeds recorded are between three parties.
Under the decision of the Court of Appeals this
! is twice as much as the law allowed him 10
/ charge"
The truth is, that the 30 cents charged by
me to the party presenting deed for record,
prior 10 June, 1883, and by my predecessors
in Office from time immemorial, as | learned
from Mr.. Charles W. Moore so well and so
favorably known in this county for 30 years
as Deputy Clerk, and from Col. $. I. Stone
street, ex-Clerk, still living in this town, who
was in the Clerks Office here as Deputy I'M
der Col. Beall and Mr. Brice Selby, and, as
Clerk from 800 TO 1850, and whom Judge
Dorsey repeatedly declared 20 be the best
Clerk in the State, said 80 cents was not
charged for "indexng each deed" Only 5
cents of the 80 cents was charged for indeItng
each deed in the name of all the grantors and
grantees be they few or many-5 cents not for
each name but for all the names-a charge so
rdlculouslv small that it is not so much even
as the charge which the Court Of Appeals
says have right TO charge, instead OF being,
| as the Sentinel states ''twice rs much as the
law allowed him (me) to charge" 1t will be
just as well if the Sentinel gets more ac-
curate information, The Oery ne1t time, it I'M
derlakes to libel one who has never done or
wished any harm TO anybody connected with
it. | wish to make a very explicit and final
statement on this particular subject, for ! am
thoroughly tired OF this sort ofcalumny and do
not mean that it shall continuation any source.
There Is a clause Of the fee list in these words,
viz: "For each entry necessary to be made on
the docket or minutes of the Court .05 CTS"
There is another in the Code Art. 49, Sec
5, in these words, viz: For any service not
mentioned in this article which any officer
may render, he shall be allowed the same fees
herein allowed for similar services Under
these provisions of law, from time immemo-
rial, in the Clerks Office here, and as ! am
informed and believe, generally, ! believe
universally, throughout the State, when any
charged AS follows, viz
~ For endorsing on deed, Received on the
- day of - 10 - ................... .05
4 (2) For entry on Record Book, "At the re-
quest OF - the following Deed was re-
corded on the - day of - Is " -. .05
! (3) For endorsing on original d. ed after il is
recorded the fact of its being recorded and
the place in Liber -, folio and sign
ing said entry as Clerk .05
! (4) For comparing, and entry on margin of
Record Book Examined and Delivered 10
49, per line filed - day OF - Is - 05
| (5) For entry in Substance Record of the fact
aud the date OF The enrolment Of deed IN
| Record Book and signing same as Clerk 05
| (6) Leaving only Of the said 30 cents TO pay
for indexing the deed in the Index of the
Record Book in Which IL is recorded in the
name of each of the Grantors and Grantees,
separat civ ....,.. ................ 05
Thus making up the total amount Of 80 cts.
Thus has been charged the 80 cents, and of
it nothing is left TO pay for the indexing in The
General HIde1 But the making OF the Cen
eral index since 1888 and before which there
was no General Index, down to June 1888 in
this county, has been paid for by the County
Commissioners, ms the law Of 1885, chapter 80
expressly provided.
Ia June, 1883, the Circuit Court here, in
full Bench, in open Court, ordered ne TO
change from the immemorial usage of this
county with respect to the charge for making
General Indexes, and directed me TO make and
keep, from that date, " cotemporaneous Cen
eral Index, and to charge the individuals pre-
sentng deeds not only the items above men
toned, but also for indeXing their deeds in
the General Index, and, of course, not to
charge the County Commissioners for work
-, I H. n l.. M
changed the previous usage of this county into
the existing usage of Frederick county, which
usage, ellen 10 Freeerick county, is OF
comparatively recent origin. therefore and
Immediately obeyed the Circuit Court and so
charged until the date of filing of the recent
opinion Of the Court a Appeals in my Office
basis Of said opinion Of the said Court of Ap
peals. The Sentinel in its editorial says tina
the Court of Appeals sustained 'AIr Peer
vows throughout" Said Court did not sus
tain Mr.. Peters view as set forth in the 81
section OF his brief, for said Count does no
say that had been paid for the preparation o
such (General) Index by fees received from
parties fling deeds for record
The Sentinel in said editorial complains thai
after Mr. Peter filed an order Tor appeal, J.
as Clerk, failing 10 obey this order, and tC
transmit the record within the time required
by law, my counsel filed motion to dismis:
the order for appeal upon that ground The
4 Sentinel seems TO think that Clerk must o5et
an order of a Solicitor, as n dog oheys hi:
master. But when quote a passage from The
Code, it and all who read, will see that
Clerk has some legal rights too-that Clerk
is an officer of the Court, just on the same
! footing as Solicitor or Attorney, and moi
/ an underlng 10 be ordered about AT the SOW
ereign will and pleasure of an Attorney. The
Revised Code, Art. H. Sec, 30, is In the fol.
lowing words, viz ''lf the Clerk shall ave
prepared the transcript, of the record us re-
quired by law, and the appellant shall
have negl cled or omitted TO pay for such
record, or by any other neglect or omission
on the part of the appellant the said
record shall not be sent to the Court of APP
peals within the time prescribed by law aitei
/ the appeal has been entered, the Court from
which the appeal was taken may, on motion
! strike out the entry of such appeal and pro-
coed TO execution or other proceedings as il
such appeal had never been entered, and there
after no other appeal shall be allowed" Now,
| when said time prescribed by law had passed in
this case, although | had prepared the tran
script Of the record as required by Law, the
4 complainant had neglected or omitted TO pay
| for such record The case was therefore, in
] Sucn COuulliOH, luhl ubu pcfItCllY leBhl
/ right To move 10 dismiss the order for appeal.
Aud any lawyer will tell any inquirer, that,
/ had not dismissed my motion in the above
state of facts the Court would certainly have
stricken out the entry of appeal, and no other
1 appeal could have been taken. | realized,
| however, that II availcd myself of this tech.
nicnl, but absolutely legal right, ii would be
howled all over the county that had lodged
I the issues of this case on lechncalty,
4 therefore requested my counsel to dismiss my
motion. ! do not now regre, having done so.
can i'll afford through bare, naked techn-
caliies of law to be deprived of the S4C0,
earned by me Just as much as ever any man
earned any thing by his labor. But can still
less afford to lower the high standard of con-
duet which the people Of this county have a
right to expect from one whom they have
four time honorcd by ELECTION to the poosion
OF Clerk.
One word moro concerning the Sentinel. So
far from having ever, consciously, done any
thing to injure any of those interested in il,
the facts are that, during the lifetime of my
friend, Matthew Fields, | very often wrote, at
his request, editorials upon such subjects, and
setting forth such views thereof as he sug-