The aegis & intelligencer. [volume] (Bel Air, Md.) 1864-1923, 1886-02-12
FEBRUARY COURT BEGINS.
JUDGE YELLOTT ON THE BENCH.
CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY.

called Monday morning. Hon George Yellot
occupied the bench, Judge Waters being en-
gagged in protracted trial at Towsontown.
Messrs. James R. Richardson, Dr. s s. Rob
inson, Seth l.. Kinsey, Herman Osmond, John
Bunyan Bailey and Samuel d. Bennington were
excused from serving as jurors, and Judge Vel
lott drew from the jury box The names of
Geo. W. Bolts, Jr., Joseph W. Knight John
w Taylor, Edmund Scarborough, VIM. T. Gro.
min and Thos. E. Morgan, to serve in place of
those excused.
Judge Yelott then selected George R. Steph-
enson as Foreman of the Grand Jury, and having
drawn % additional names of the jurors sum-
moned, the grand jury was completed, as fol-
lows:
Grand Jtny.-Geo R. Stephenson Foreman;
John f. Upton, John Haviland, Joseph NJ Sim
mons, Isaac w. Thompson, Joseph s. White
ford, Benjamin Sawyer, u. Granville Hughes,
Albert LEfin, Eli Pyle, Thomas E Morgan,
John w. Taylor, Basil Grafton John c. Tuck.
er, Patrick ilushon, VIM Hawkins, Jr., Ed
mund scarborough, II. Scott Street,, James
Turner, Joseph Spencer, Luke Connaughton,
VIM. Bailey, Alfred o. Forwood.
The names remaining in the box were those
of the Petit Jury, as follows:
Petit Jury.-John Furlong, Frank B. Proctor,
Robert F. McGaw, Harry s. Hyde, Samuel NJ
Orr, Harrison Ayres, James ii. Grant, John
Denbow, Amer Pyle, Frank P. Malcolm, VIM.
f. Lngan, John T. Kennedy, Robert Seneca,
Elisha j. Rogers, George W. Bolts, Jr., VIM. 7.
Cronin, George ID. Jarrett, VIM. j. Harkns,
John Fletcher, S. Martin Bayless, Charles Bur
kins, George A. Boyd, VIM. l.. Bailey, Matthew
Tahaney, Joseph W. Knight.
Judge Yellott delivered the following charge
to the Grand Jury:
Gentlemen Of tie Grand J,gy:
The member OF the court upon whom deyolyes
the duty of opening the February term cannot
refrain from an expression of regret that the
necessity for his presence elsewhere has render
ed his visits to this part of the Circuit so unfre-
quent. But, Notwithstanding this constrained
absence, he Is not ignorant of the fact that the
general condition of this county is that of peace
and good order, which might be confidently eX-
pected in view of the high character which its
industrious, enterprising and intelligent people
have acquired with respect to those qualities
which constitute the elements of good citizen
ship But no matter what may be the degree of
enlightenment, in community and how high
may be its standard of civic eXt ellence there
will ways be some attractions of law of a ma
ture to affect the well-being of he social sys en-
nizance of such Offences he general prnci-
pies by which you should be governed in con-
indicated by the oath which each one of you has
just taken. You are to favor no one because of
friendly feelings, nor can you properly allow
hostile sentiments to operate so as to exercise
control over your minds, and thus, possibly in
duce the formation of erroneous conclusions
1t is your duty to he strictly impartial and to
present all things truly; that is you should in
no case make presentment and thereby bring
an accusation against some one of your fellow
citizens unless you conscentiously believe that
the evidence justifies you in so doing. If you
find that the charge which has been preferred is
properly supported by satisfactory proof, then
tearlessly and faithfully perform your duty by
making the presentment. And in the transac-
ton of the business brought before you the OBJ
legation of seeresy imposed by your oath should
veament of any thing which may transpire
while you are in session. Ii you should at any
time encounter difficulties in regard to the solu-
ton of legal questions which may be presented,
the Court Will take pleasure in imparting such
information as you may require, aud it will be
the duty of the States Attorney to aid you with
his advice and counsel in cases where doubts
may be entertained respecting the proper course
to be pursued.
The Court is not, at present informed of any
fragrant violations of law to which it is necessary
to direct your attention. If, during the term,
information of this nature should be received,
the mat or will be specially given you in charge
1t may, however, be necessary to say that in
conformity with statutory requirements it will
be your duty at some time during the term to
visit the Jail of the county and report upon its
condition and also upon the condition of the
prisoners therein confined.
Gentlemen, you will now retire to the room
assigned for your occupation, and enter upon
the performance of the important duties devolv-
ing upon Grand Jury.
AT the call of the docket on Monday, judy
ments were entered in the following cases
Henry G. johnson VS.. VIM. II. Cunningham
Archer IL VanBibber for plaintiff, Stump for
defendant.
M N; J; u Mccormick and E. H Webster vs.. Re
for plaintiffs, Archer q VanBibber for defend
ant.
Camilla Mitchell VS.; Garnishees of Hogan
SEQ; Williams for plaintiff, Stump, Hopkins
and Archer s. VanBibber for defendants.
~ John Sappington vs. David II. Stokes
Griet & Mann VS.. James a. Cunningham.-
Harlan Webster for plaintiffs, VIM. Young for
Henry d. Farnandis, trustee, VS.. Jay f. Town
er Robinson for plaintiff, II. w. Archer for
defendant
Dominick Hammond vs. James Smith ct. al,
adm'rs. w IN. Young for plaintiff, Archer &
VanBbber for defendants.
Henry ID. Farnandis VS.. Parker and James
Smi hson; two cases: Robinson for plaintiff.
Henry ID. Farnandis VS.. b. +. Smthson ct al
Robinson for plaintiff.
Josiah Cope & Co. VS.. George w. Andrews
VIM. NJ. Emmart VS.. Walter Is. and James T.
Chamberlain. Harlan s. Webster for plantiff,
Dozen for defendants
Dinsmore s. Kyle VS.. ID. E. Wiley. williams
for plaintiffs Stump for defendant.
Fremont Cultiyator Co. VS.. Emmord Taylor.
Stump for plaintiff, Archer & Van bibber for de-
PENDANTS.
Smith & wicks vs. II. L. and D. b. Arthur
Williams for plaintiffs, Archer & VanBibber for
Black & Krcbs VS.. w. b. Chamberlain & Bro
Harlan & Webster for plaintiffs.
Israel g: Matthews VS.. Fredericka Lay. Stump
lhurber, whyland & Co. vs. Howard w.
street,. VIM. Young for plaintiffs Street, for
Same VS.. J. II. Hopkins & Co. Same counsel.
VIM. Whitelock u Co. VS.. Abram Shertzer and
wife Bosley for plaintiffs.
Same vs.. Jesse Pocock and John f. Richard
son. Same counsel.
John N. spencer vs.. Charles Lavally two
| cases. Hopkins and Preston for plaintiff.
Lawder Co. VS.. Same. Stump for plaintiff.
| Jas. A. Davis g. Son VS.. James Whitelock.-
Gilbert for plaintiffs, IL. w. Archer Jr., for de-
| Lord * Polk VS.. Abram shertzer and wife -
| Gilbert for plaintiffs.
Fairbanks & Co. VS.. Samuel and Mary A. Will
| son. Williams for plaintiffs, Archer and Van
Bibber for defendants.
thomas, Ludlow s Rogers VS.. John II. En-
mord. Lee for plaintiffs, stump for defendant
| Lord & Polk Va. Samuel w. and Anne r.
James Gilbert for plaintiffs.
Henry w. Cope Co vs.. Charles w. Gilbert
| Hophins and Preston for plaintiffs.
Murray Vandiyor, Admir-, VS.. Jacob p. Walker.
| Stump for plaintiff.
j. Il. Tygert s. Co. vs.. Walter and Charles H.
| Harvard. stump for plaintiffs.
| a. Preston Gilbertvs. j. Frank Jones. Gilbert
Lord 4 Polk VS. Charles w. Pretzman Gil
bert for plaintiffs, Stump for defendant.
| Same VS.. VIM. G. Roberts. Gilbert for plant
| IFS.
Same vs. Augustus W. Walker. Gilbert for
plaintiffs.
Same vs.. Robert Forwood. Gilbert for plant
IFS.
John A. Hanna VS.. Frederick N. Ramsay
GILBERT for plaintiff.
Josiah Cope j. Co. VS.. Abram ShertZer and
wife. Dozen for plaintiffs.
Murray Vandiver, admir-, VS.. G. G. and John
ii. Martin. Williams for plaintiff.
VIM. w. Clarke & Co. VS.. VIM. w. Taylor
Lee for plaintiffs.
The case OF Charles X. McConkey vs. Thos
II. Street, and Samuel Wilson, for lumber, de-
lvered April Goth, 1888, amounting to S246 IL,
was commenced Wednesday morning. The case
was given to the jury, between twelve and one
O'Clock, and after remaining out until nearly
eleven O'Clock Thursday, without agreeing, they
were discharged. Williams for plaintiff,
Stump for defendants.
The next case tried before jury was that of
jeremiah McIlvaue Col. Stump represented
the plaintiffs and VIM. Young and Archer d
VanBibber for the defendant. The plaintiffs
having failed to prove delivery of the machine
sue for, the Judge instructed the jury to find
or he defendant. The plaintiffs, however, took
n