The aegis & intelligencer. [volume] (Bel Air, Md.) 1864-1923, 1888-02-17
uhA MI dlh1.
Hugh A. Jones, Foreman

DdHlQ L. JOln U. MCCOY,
Chas. Osborn. Chas. Schwanck,
j. Edward wilkinson, Ralph L. Wilson,
John ID. Mcads, John Kelly,
N w. s. Hays, VIM. T. Shay,
John II. Fisher, JOS McVey.
Thos. b. DAugherty,
When the Grand Jury had been duly sworn
Judge Waters delivered to them the following
charge:
M. Foreman and Gentlemen or the Grand Jury:
There Is no duty which citizen of the State
can be called upon to discharge which is more i'm
portant than the one in which you are about to
service you will constitute part Of this court and
upon your actions will depend, to an important
degree. tine impartial administration of the laws.
The oath which you have Just taken separates
you, for tho time being, from the rest of the
general public, and constitutes you the represen-
aside your individual feelings and personal preju-
dices. You are to remember TO keep sacred the
secrets of the State Of Maryland, your fellows
You are to present no one through envy.
hatred. malice or Ill will You are to leave no
one unpresented through love, fear, favor or af
toction or for any hope or promise of reward.
Service upon the jury fs not right or privilege
da Sne 9se
age Of twenty-five years. except certain classes of
ysry limited numbers which are spsoislly ex-
empted is liable be to called upon for Jury service
provided his name appears either upon list of
the taxable Inhabitants OF the county or upon the
poll books OF one of the several election districts.
choice and in part a matter Of chance. Before
each term OF court the judges are required to
place in suitable box kept for the purpose
the names OF two hundred persons fairly
and uapdrtidRy selected by them, with special
briefly OF such persons and without the least refer
ence to their political opinion. From this panel
ofltwo hundred names thus obtained. forty5eight
and Petit jurles of the term. The requirement
that the Judges shall select the panel Of two
hundred names, fairly and impartially." must
prevent and was intended to prevent tho selec-
ton OF juros with reference to a particular case
or particular class OF cases. The difficulty that
no matter now excellent a jury may be. as
whole, tits not possible that every member OF it
shall be absolutely unobtectonable and Impair
tial for all cases and all classes OF cases. is met by
the fact that In the grand jury the concurrence
OF thirteen members only Is required TO find an
indictment or presentment; AID in the trial of
cases, either civil or criminal, the right of per-
emptory challenge is given to both sides. From
the institution of our State government to the
present time, trial by jury. according to the
course of the common law of England, has al
ways been regarded as amongst the most pre-
cious rights inherited from tho mother country.
1t may be possible that In process of time class
of men may DO evolved so gifted above other
mortas that they can WITHOUT study intuityely
sciences. and with omniscient power reach the
truth Of a cause without waiting for the evil
cence;" but in the meanwhile when we sit In
Judgment on our fellow men undertake to
determine the rights of our neiRhbors, 1t will be
guided by the landmarks which the wisdom of
centuries has marked out and established.
During the recent term OF court. my attention
was called In open court to certain publications
in two Of the county papers, and was asked to
take the proper steps to protect the court and its
officers and juries. and 1 tnereupon promised to
refer the matter to you. You will find the pub
LEGATIONS In the Hartford Democrat of January
goth and in the Bel Air Times of the same date.
as you may think most conducive to the public
good. certainly have no desire to assist those
gentlemen In maRnifying their small mole-hill
into a mountain They are both manifestly mis-
taken in imagining that the liberty of the press
IL anyWise involved, In principle there Is but
liberty of the individual In both cases 1t is liber-
ty restrained by law In both cases 1t is the right
70 use ones own as one pleases, provided only
that use does not result in the injury of another
1t matters not, in principle, whether the thing
owned and "a, used Is printing press or Calling
no one has claimed other directly or by impli-
cation that courts or their officers or jurios
On the contrary did expressly disclaim 1t and
took the precaution TO read my remarks from
recty IL desired. As both editors disroQarded
tho truth whom so easily obtainable, what can he
expected In cases where the truth is more Diff
cult to getatp Unfortunately for the gentlemen,
in case of indictment. and think equally unfor-
tunately for the court, they have seen fit to pub
impossible for them to prove the truth even II
they were, In point of fact, true. This point is
clearly recognized by their special champion, the
Cecil Democrat, and while 1t effectualy disposes
of their means Of defence, at the time 1t goes
much further and takes away the interest which
IL,
The State of course cannot assume the burden of
proving the falsity Of the statements, and In a
conviction which might seem to be the RESULT
of merely technical failure to prove the truth
l can have no personal interest whatever And
for the very same reason am unable to SEQ how
the public interests would BIO benefited by auch
trial.
At the call of the docket the following entries
were made:
Entered Of-Daniel Scott vs. Richard Finney
ct al; VIM. IL. Dozen vs.. John Smith Josiah
Cope Il Co. VS.. Milford NJ Carr; John P.
Sheppard We, BENJAMIN v; Preston; John P.
Sheppard vs. jacob 2. Walker; Henry Reckord
u Sons VS.. Frances H. Fuford.
Carried to Stet Docket-Peter Galloway VS.
Henry c. Lawder and Mary Moore, Admr's of
VIM. 8. Moore; Rachel A. McComas and Benja.
min 7. Jourdsn, Admire, VS.. Charles l.. Heck
and John Gross; James Richards vs. EVELYN
Rue; r. Courtney & Bro. ", Arisn ". Han.
cock; j. Frank Jones We. A. W. Templeman
garnishee; Q. p. Mitchell vs.. Fisher Il Grill ;
Same vs. same.
Judgments. Geo. F. Taylor VS.. Isaac Amos
ct al, -garnishees Judgment confessed for
costs. Henry W. Archer and Stump for plain
tiff Gilbert and VIM. Young for defendants.
X. j. Baker & Bros, vs.. James P. Walker ct
al, garnishees judgment confessed for costs
stump Tor plaintiff, Gilbert for garnlshees.
JAS. NJ. McNabb, trustee, vs. VIM. McCurdy ct
al; Judgment confessed, j. NJ McNabb for
plaintiff, Lee and Stump for defendants.
Lemuel W. Murphy vs.. Samuel W. Lawder;
judgment by default. Lee for plaintiff.
Jeremiah Lowe vs.. Joshua and Eliza johnson;
Judgment confessed. Lee for plaintiff, Street,
for defendants.
Parvis d Williams Company VS.. Washington
Barton judgment confessed. s. A. Williams
for plaintiffs, Hopkins for defendant.
james Blingslea vs.. VIM. Durham; iudp.
ment confessed. j. NJ. McNabb for plaintiff
Hopkins for defendant.
Springfield Manufacturing Company VS.
Charles w. Amos; judgment confessed. j. NJ.
McNabb for plaintiff
Roussey Judgment by default. Williams fol
plaintiff
John c. Hubbard VS.. Chas. l.. and Sarah G..
Heck; judgment confessed. Williams fol
plaintiff Young for defendants.
Lord " Polk We. Geo. l.. Mitchell Judgment
by default Gilbert for plaintiffs
Moore Bros. VS.. George A. and VIM. I
Shay; Judgment by default. VanBibber fol
plaintiffs.
Deere Company VS.. Geo. W. stnchcomb
Judgment confessed. j. NJ. McNabb for plaintiff
On Tuesday Joseph T. Burkins and David II
Reynolds, insolvents, appeared in open court
and no objections being made were finally dis
charged.
No cases being ready, for trial the petit jur,
were discharged until Saturday next
The Grand Jury have found the following
prcsentments and indictments
Hugh Devin. for assault and battery upon A
J. Sugar, of Bel Air.
Harriet Hoke, colored, for larceny of stor
goods fIom T. l.. Hanway d Co., of Aberdeen
Charles Whims, colored, for larceny of stor