Democratic messenger., 1889-05-25
MAY COURT.
Judges Irving and Holland on
the Bench.

opening was complied with the following
Grand Jury was drawn, and Judge lIol-
land delivered his charge:
Stephen =. Mason, foreman, Ara p.
Bowen, clerk. Erastus S. Dashicll. Geo.
W. Bailey, Levin J. Houston, George
Med. Mount, Sidney w. Adkins, Daniel
W. CoulbOurnc, Joshua J. Shocklcy, Nobt.
+. Bevans, Edward Benson, Benjamin T.
Shocklcy. Sidney W. Timmons, Henry
Jarman. Henry &. Conoway, Edward S.
Furbush, George W. Parsons. Edward q.
Clayyillc. Isaac W. Burbage, William W.
Schoolflcld, Francis J. Ross, Robert II.
Powell and VIM. ID. Pitts.
JUDGE HOLLANDS CHARGE.
Judge Holland in delivering the charge
TO the Grand Jury said: that IL was the
duty Of the court to give them in charge
such crimes and mis,lcmeanors as the law
required. The Act of the Legislature oi
1868, Chapter l79, and the Ac, of the Leg.
islature of 1872, Chapter 800. provided
that the court should give these Acts in
charge TO the Grand Jury. lie then de.
fined the offences legislatcd upon in these
Acts, and said IL they knew of the com.
mission Of these crimes and mis,lcmcan.
ors, il was their duty to present the ac-
cused in this court for trial. II Is, he said,
customary for the court 10 instruct the
Jury regarding their duties and in speak.
Ing TO u Grand Jury or their duties. he
always felt u desire to impress upon them
that they were the guardians for the time
being of individual rights and liberties as
well as the safety, piece and quiet OF the
community. Therefore while the Jury
should fully investigate all violations of
the law that come TO their knowledge and
present all offenders for trial anu punish.
mcnt, il is equally their duty to see that
no citizen should be deprived of his liber-
~ and put To- the cost of trial by charges
prompted by malice to crafty u personal
spite. This they are able to do and in
this respect are superior TO any other
tribunal beca use Grand Jurics are formed
by citizens from every part Of the county.
and some of the members must have a
personal knowledge OF every violation Of
the law within the county and of the
offenders. lie then described the manner
Of their proceedings, and said that in ad.
dition Ia the duty of investigating oiIcnscs
against the law they had supervision of
the public property and public roads, that
they must examine the county Jail and re-.
port Ia the court lis condition, etc That
they should send committee 10 examine
the county aims house and ascertain how
the inmates are treated and make such
recommendations as they might deem
proper. The county roads and the officers
having charge of them should receive
their attention. After cauiioning them 10
he careful in keeping the proceedings
secret, and imprcssing upon them strong
reasons for doing so he dismissed them 10
tlwir room with the hope that their work
would no, be- difficult and that il might
he quickly dispatched.
The balance Of Monday was consumed
in calling oil the Docket.
On Tuesday chici Judge Irving was
present, having arrived on Monday even.
ing.
TUESDAY.
The court was first engaged in trial
of No. 3, Appeals, DR. Thos. A. J.
Holloway VI. Vim. L. Lankiord. This
appca; was taken from judgement of Jas.
NJ. Brat,cn. Judgement of court below
affirmed with costs To appellee
No |. Criminal Contlruanccs, State Of
Maryland vs. Sarah J Hickman, assault,
was next taken up and disposed Of Party
found guilty OF crime aud sentenced To bc
confined in the jail of Worcester county
for 10 days. W. 5. Wilson for State and
Cpslur Il purncll for defendant.
Nos. u, III. l; and Is, Criminal Coniinu.
ances ncA, occupied the attention of the
court as follows, to wit:
No. q, State VS.. John T. Benson, charge
selling liquor and allowing II to be drunk
on his premises without first having oh.
tanned license therefor. Party appeared
plea HOn cnl and issue and traverse before
the court. The States Attorney declin
Ing 80 oilcr any testimony, party was ad.
judged not guilty by the court and dis.
charged W $ Wilson for State anil
Upshur n Purncll for defendant.
M. ~. Same VS.. Same, for same oircnse
Judgement guilty and party fined 5000
and costs. Counsel as IN No. q.
No. IL, Same IS. same. for same oiTrnsc
Judgement guilty and fined $10OO and
costs. Counsel same ns in NJ. q.
No. ~, Same vs.. same for same oiTcnsc
Party appears plea nan cVl and issue and
traverse before The court The States
Attorney declining to offer an, teslimon,
party was adludgcd moi guilty oi Grim,
aud discharged Counsel same MS in M. q
Edward J. Clarke and William !. =
Clarke, having applied To the Court fni
the benefit of the Insolvcnt Laws Of the
State and having given the required No
ticc OF same, appeared in turn before III,
cour for discharge under said Insolyeni
proceedings No objection being offered
they were each discharged.
M. ,, Appeals Was ncNl taken up rhis
was nm action brought hy VIM. T.. Iank
ford against the \. Y. r. n Nurfhlk Raj
Road Company Ia recover the value of n
cnw killed by one Of The trains Of SAT-,
railroad company near PoComOke CITY
before James l.. Mock. Esq, who render.
ed verdict for plaintiff. The railroad com
pany appealed 10 this court and trial by
jury was had The examination Of vii
ncsscs occupied the attention oi this conrl
till o'clock when court adjourned iii
Tomorrow morning at . o'clock.
WEDNESDAY.
Court met this morning pursuant /,
adjournment Appeal case tNo. p, com.
menced yesterday, was proceeded with
and amer argument by the counsel ha,
hcen concluded the jury retired 10 lheii
room, aud after remaining out about an
hour returned 10 the bar Of the court with
n verdict for the anpeIlec. Wm. L. Innk