The aegis & intelligencer. [volume] (Bel Air, Md.) 1864-1923, 1886-05-14

the Petit Jury, as follows
John Carter, "a. p. McCombs,
John X. stokes, Thos II. e. Reed,
VIM. A. Heaps, John J. Money,
Alex. A. Fletcher, j. w. O'NeIl.
John II. Andrews, James p. Reall,
stephen w. Harkins, Robert N. Hanna,
VIM. Lockhard James +. Kenly,
Eli Rigdon, James Keatly,
John Lynch, tof D. T6 io H wi iey''
Samuel fl. Mathews, Joseph Bosley,
j. Frank Reasin, Amos Spencer.
Goldsborough McComas
AT the call of the docket an unusually large
number of cases which have encountered it for
some time with no prospect of trial, were carried
to the stet docket. They were the following:
Thos. Barton VS.. Joseph Warner; James Boy ce
vs.. Joseph N. Simmons; A. ID. K. Spencer vs..
vs.. Harrison Hopper & Co. Slifer, Merryman &
Co. VS.. Q. L. Heck; Isabella Amos VS.. William
Hughes Farmers Bone and Fertilizer Co. VS..
Joseph Strawbridge; Same vs.. VIM. Fletcher
Jno. Armstrong VS.; Tydings Hoffman same VS..
Allen Hoffman; VIM. G.. Coulson VS.. James
VIM. H. and i. Sweet James whitelock vs.. Jas.
III. Bowman; Martin Mahan VS.. John II. Copen-
haver; Patrick Prendible VS.. David Moulsdale,
garnishee; johnson & Glenn VS.. Isaac Deckman
nus Son vs. n n " ' s. Hays Ha ri MS at
Francis ]. Boyd VS.. garnishee of James Hogan &
Co. John l.. Cook 81 Co. VS.. same; Andrew L.
SSlymer, vs.; same; Elizabeth Boyd vs.. same
Rcharda L. Robinson VS.. garnishees of James
Hogan Co.; Jas. Hopper Co: VS.. same; Mary
A. Barnes vs.. same; Samuel Ward VS.. same
Sc, vs.. Independent Telegraph Co.; VIM. H.
Hopkins VS.. garnishees of Hogan s. Co.: John
Mahon, Jr., VS.. K. G. Huston & Co. Geo. Magic
vs.. garnishees of John E. Hopkins & Bro; Mary
K. Coleman vs.. Amer Pyle; Charles NJ. Brown vs.
same; VIM. A. Hipkins VS.. garnishees of Hogan
y Co. John q: Wright. assignee, VS.. Norman Van
Nortrand s. H. Levin's Sons vs. garnishee of
Collins y Steiner; Geo. s. Good vs. Patrick Prem
dible Harrison Hopper vs John Fl. Haines; w.
J.. Parke 20. vs. garnshees of A. b. Hanson !;
VIM. j. Whiting L. Co. vs. same; Dix g. Wilkins
vs.. John II. Copenhayer; Harry D. Hanway vs..
Michael; S. A. Williams vs.. Michael Whteford ;
F. A. North Co. VS.. Henry G. McCommons.
The following judgments were also entered:
Henry W. Archer VS.. Administrators of
Gabriel A: McComas agreed. Robert Archer for
plaintiff Archer Il Van Bibber for defendants.
VIM. Shanbergerv vs.. Il. ID. Hayward, Judgment
confessed. Lee for plaintiff, Williams for de-
Hartford National Bank vs. Hayward. Furlong
& Co.; judgment confessed. Hopkins for plain
tiff.
Tate, Muller g. Wittichen VS.. Walter Chamber
lain ct; al; Judgment confessed. Young for
plaintitfs, Dozen for defendants.
Il. A. Bryan & Co. VS.. ID. B. Arthur; Judgment
confessed. stump for plaintiffs, Archer Van
Bibber for defendant.
w. P: Whiting & Co. VS.. same. Same entries.
Josiah Cope s Co. vs. Eliza NJ. Jackson judg-
ment. Dozen for plaintiffs, S. Archer and VIM.
F. W. Kimble VS.. r. E. Webster Judgment for
$50, each party to pay his own costs. Archer and
VanBibber for plaintiff, Harlan and Webster for
Grillet s. Mann VS.. Thos H. Roberts (of VIM. y
Judgment by default. Harlan 81 Webster for
Lord s Polk VS.. Abram shertzer and wife :judg.
ment. Gilbert for plaintiffs
Henry w. Archer, trustee, vs.. Joseph Il. Ward
Judgment by default. Robert Archer for plain
Henry Cope Co. VS.. Charles W. Gilbert. Hop
kins Preston for plaintiffs.
judgment by default. Stump for plaintiff.
Lord Polk vs.. Charles w. Pretzman judg-
ment extended. Gilbert for plaintiffs, Stump for
Same VS.. VIM. G. Roberts; judgment extended.
Same vs.. A. W. Walker. Same entries.
Same VS.. Robert Forwood. Same entries.
John A. Hanna VS.. F N. Ramsay; judgment
extended. Gilbert for plaintiff.
Alex. e. Cummings VS.. Bennett Arnold. Lee
for plaintiff, Davis and H. w. Archer for Defend
j. H. Thiemeyer s. Co. VS.. Howard w. Street, :;
Judgment confessed for 1928 so. Wilson for plain
tiffs, Street, for defendant.
Charles G. McColgan & Co. vs.. Geo. S. Arm
strong Judgment confessed. Lee for plaintiffs
Stump for defendant.
VIM. whitelock & Co. vs. folly & Richardson !;
Judgment Bosley for plaintiffs, Williams for
VIM; A; steever VS.. Frank A. Brown judgment
by default. Robinson for plaintiff.
Lord Polk VS.. Howard w. Street, Judgment
confessed Gilbert for plaintiffs, STREET. for de-
John p. Mitchell VS.. Joseph Nj. Simmons and
wife; Judgment by default. Hopkins and Pres
Cecil National Bank VS.. James T. Bennington !;
Judgment confessed. Price for plaintiff, Robin
son for defendant
Same vs.. Aquila j. Jones judgment by de-
Executors of VIM. B. Rowland vs. d. r. Arthur;
Judgment confessed. Price for plaintiffs, Archer
van1Bibber for, defendant.
ment by default. Same counsel.
Emory Jones vs.. Samuel Flayhart and James
Morris Judgment by default. McNabb for
Lucy F. Moore, ex'x, VS.. John Davln et al. :;
Judgment by default. Harlan & Webster for
George T. Cutler vs.. Bennett Arnold ct. al :;
Judgment confessed j: s: Richardson & Van
Smith and Wicks vs. Israel G. Matthews judg.
ment confessed. Williams for plaintiffs, Stump
Hartford National Bank VS.. VIM. Enfield judg-
ment oy default. Williams for plaintiff.
Same, vs.. s. j. Scarborough and Philip Scar
borough Judgment by default. Williams for
A: L. Wolf VS.. James L. Whitaker; Judgment
by detanlt; williams for plaintiff.
5. A. Williams VS.. DR.. Charles II. and James e.
street,; Judgment by default Williams for
VIM. G. McCurdy VS.. James c. smithson and
wire; Judgment by default. Maynader for
plaintiff.
Herman Stump vs. Joseph E. and Kate e. Cor
rell Judgment by default. Stump for plaintiff.
Brown Chemical Co. VS.. Charles w Roberts
Judgment confessed Stump for plaintiff, WIN.
Young for defendant.
On Tuesday the case of John G. Rouse vs. Hen
ry and Frances II. Fulford was commenced. This
was suit upon a promssory note for $S03.68.
drawn by Henry Fulford and endorsed by his
mother, Mrs. F. IL. Fulford. An interesting
point in the case was the Offering of commission
containing the testimony of Henry Fulford, tax
en- In New York. Objection was made by the
plaintiffs counsel that the commission was
worthless because it was not under the seal of
the Commissioner before whom it was taken. At
ter the adjournment of court Wednesday after
noon Mr.. Henry w. Archer, Jr.. one of the coun-
sci for the defendants. made trip to New York
and back, and presented the paper, properly seal.
ed, in court Thursday morning.
Mr.. Van Bibber still objected to its admission,
on the ground that being court paper no one
had the right to alter or add to it without the
permission of the court first had and obtained.
Judge Waters overrued the objection and said
that the court could not recognize the right OF
any ono to alter or amend a record of the court
but On the ground that leave to amend would
have been granted If asked, the sufclency OF
the return on the commission was allowed. The
case is still on trial. Messrs Geo. l.. Van Blbber
and VIM. Young appear for the plaintiff, and Fl
w. Archer, H. w. Archer, Jr., and A. NJ. Fulforc
for the defendants.
ABINGDON, January 20, 1886.