The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1886-11-20
ditauit oanrt prooeedings.

On Saturday last the following prisoners
were arraignedi
Frank Brown, Lewis Wright and Charles
Wilson, all Of Baltimore, indicted Tor break
riAg into and robbing the store OF OctavIus
Devries at Henryton, on the line OF the baitl-
more & Ohio railroad, in Freedom district;
and John Cannon and James Smith, indicted
for breaking into and robbing the store OF
Davidson & Son, Taneytown. All plead not
entity. and their cases will be tried after the
Burke and Kennedy murder case is disposed
Of
On Monday the appeal docket was taken
up and the following cases heard
John Becker vs. Charles <. Mahanna; ap-
peal from Justice Byers of Wooley's district;
tried before jury. Verdict for appellee for
$50. McKellip & Clabaugh for Becker; Bond
for Mahanna.
Justice Mikesell; tried before the Court.
Judgment reversed; finding and Judgment for
appellee for S25.05 and cost. Maulsby Tor
Cole; Reifsnider & Fink for Grimes.
On Tuesday the case of William P. Mauls-
by VS.. Eliza Ann Byers and John G. Byers,
her husband, occupied the attention OF the
Court. The particulars of this case are
in brief: Mrs. Byers held mortgage
against w. H Orndorff for the sum of 81
$685. Judge Maulsby, as her attorney, filed
proceedings in the court here to foreclose this
mortgage Orndorff paid to Mrs. Byers the
amount of the mortgage, interest and costs,
and she and her husband gave to the clerk OF
the court their written order to enter the case
paid and satisfied. Judge Maulsby claimed
that they had no right to do this, and that by
their act he was prevented making the com
missions which would come to him If he had
proceeded with the sale. 1t was to recover
e al,
brought suit. The Byerses claimed that has
action in foreclosing the mortgage was unau,
thorized. The case was decided in favor OF
the defendants, Judge Miller delivering the
opinion of the court, or the ground that the
suit could not be maintained against mar
ried woman to enforce contract IN which her
husband did not join Maulsby for plaintiff;
Reifsnider & Fink for defendants.
Immediately after the trial of this case the
case of Eliza Ann Byers and John G. Byers,
her husband, VS.. VIM. p. Maulsby was called:
This case is the sequel to the celebrated
Hoppe will case. ]. Henry Hoppe died In.
testate, but Mrs. Byers presented to the court
a letter from J. Henry Hoppe to her in his
life time, in which he said she was to have
$40. coo. will or no will. The heirs contested
her claim, and after a severely fought case
the Court of Appeals decided in favor OF Mrs.
Byers. Judge Maulsby was one of her eoun-
sci, and by contract he received for his SER
vices the sum Oslo, 600. Part of this sum was
paid to other counsel.] Before the amount
Of the Judgment was paid by the representa-,
tives OF ]. Henry Hoppe the sum of S5,O8l
interest accrued on the $4,000. Mrs. Byers
claims that this sum of money was paid to
Judge Maulsby, together with the principal
sum, making the sum of S45, 0S1, and that he
paid to her only $4,000 and retained the IN
terest without right thereto. The suit is to
recover the amount of the interest alleged to
have been retained by Judge Maulsby and the
interest thereon. Judge Maulsby's defense
is that he has the written agreement of both
Mr.. and Mrs. Byers that in addition to the
sum of $4,000 he should also retain the
accrued interest, and that he retains the
same of right"
The case was still on trial when our report
closed yesterday. Reifsnider Il Fink for
plaintiffs: Maulsby and Bond for defendant.