The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1888-03-03
The maulspy-Re,fsnider SANDER Suit.


At Hagerstown, on Friday of last week, the
case of Col. VIM. p. Maulsby VS.. Charles T..
Reifsnider, both of the Westminster Bar, was
begun.
The plaintiff was represented by Col II. X.
Douglas, VIM. P. Maulsby, Jr., and VIM. D..
Witzenbacher. Ex-Attorney- General Chas.
B. Roberts and Messrs. Keedy and Lane ap-
peared for the defendant. Among the wit
nesses were judges John d. Smith and j..
Thomas Jones, Joseph NJ. Parke, Col. VIM.
A. McKellip, George NJ. Pearce and others.
Col. Maulsby in his declaration charged Mr..
Reifsnider with telling persons in Westmin-
ster that he (Maulsby) in the settlement of
affairs in connection with the Hoppe will case
collected S., 900 interest on the Eliza Ann
Byers legacy, which he kept and refused to
account for. The amount sued for was $l0,-
| 600.
On Saturday, according to the Hagerstown
correspondent of the Baltimore Sun, under
date of February &c, the alleged SANDER is
charged to have been committed by Mr.. Ref
snider while making an opening statement to
the jury in trial in Westminster, in which
Col Maulsby was the plaintiff and Mr.. Ref
snider attorney for the defendants. In the
SANDER case the defendant pleaded the abso-
| lutte privilege of an attorney in the trial of a
cause. The plaintiff replication stated that
although the defendant psed the words com-
planned of as an attorney, and while con-
| Quoting a case in court, yet the words were
slanderous and untrue, and not relevant or
pertinent to the cause or any issue in it, and
not spoken in reference to any case on trial
or to the subject of inquiry in any judicial
proceeding, but were outside of it, and ire
levant to any matter being inquired into. were
spoken maliciousy and without probable
cause, and were beyond the privilege of an
| Ii ! sc
replication, raising the question of absolute
privilege in an attorney under such circum-
stances.
The court sustained the demurrer, thus
finding in favor of defendant, and Chief JUS
tice Alvey, in delivering the opinion of the
court, said that this was a question Of great
importance, and that this was the first time it
was ever raised for adjudication in Maryland.
1t involved the question whether judges, ad-
vocates, jurors and witnesses were to be en-
tirely free and untrammeled in the investiga.
ton of cases, or whether they we're to be held
responsible for words spoken during such in
vestigation. He cited anumber of authorities
to show that judges were never so held re-
sponsible, land placed judges, attorneys, jurors
and witnesses on the same footing so far rs
their privileges we're concerned IN this par
ticular. He argued that any such restraint
would interfere largely with the free admin
istration of justice. He cited and relied priIn-
cipally upon number of English cases IN
which this question bad been passed upon By
the most eminent Judges. and said that all
these decisions were founded upon principles
of public policy, and thought it better that the
individual should suffer than that judges and
attorneys be put under such restraint, The
privilege Of the attorney, he added, was TO!
the benefit of the client The plaintiff .had
cited a number Of decisions from the various
States, and from the Supreme Court OF tht
United States, which did not follow the Eng
lish cases, but Judge Alvey deemed it advis
able to follow the English cases in Maryland
because based upon. common law, and II
the highest tribunal of the State.
On Monday the court instructed the jury Z
bring in a verdict for the defendant, thus end
ing the case. 1t will be taken to the Cour
Of Appeals.