The aegis & intelligencer. [volume] (Bel Air, Md.) 1864-1923, 1889-02-15
GRAND JURY.
Benjamin Cole, Foreman.

A1ter tne Granu jury nad OeGn sworn in and
taken their oaths Judge Waters delivered q
charge to them in which he said:
1.-THE welfare of society and the administra-
tion of justice require that the laws should be
impartally and fairly executed. This deppnds
In great measure, upon the Grand Jury. Your
duties are defined in the oath you have taken.
L is not your duty to try cases but TO make
iigent enquiry to ascertain if the laws have
cen violated. Ifyou hnd there has been any
violation Of law and you have evidence TO prove
1t, 1t is your duty to show to the court those
facts and the case will be tried by o petit jury.
"Since the last Grand Jury met new law has
gone into effect in Hartford county with regard
to the sale of liquor. 1t is your duty to en-
qure, not only into violations of this law but
of all other laws. You have no right to dis
eliminate between laws and say you will en-
force one and not another. You must examine
into violations of all laws and pres-
ent the facts as they come to your know
ledge. You should not make presentments for
any offence unless you can send to the court
with the presentment the names Of witnesses
who can prove that the offence has been com
mtted.'
On motion of Col. Z. II. Webster, MIR. Rich.
ard Dalam, son of the late Major William II.
Dallam, was admitted to practice as an attorney
of the Circuit Court for Harfoad county, upon
a diploma from the Maryland University Law
School.
The docket being called the following en-.
tries were made:
Lord d Polk Co. VS.. Frank Grill; off. Gil.
bert for plaintiff
James W. Wiley VS.. Mary Wiley and Others
Referred TO Herman Stump aud s. Archer.
VIM. Young and VanBibber for plaintiff, s.
Davis for defendants.
Mary r. Cook We. B. and o. Railroad Co.;
agreed; VIM. Young and Msynadier for plain.
tiff, VanBibber for defendant.
Joseph Cook Va. same; VIM. Young for plain
tiff, VsnBibber for defendant.
Mayor and City Council of Havre de Grace vs.
F., w. and b. Railroad Co.; agreed. Hopper
and 5. A. Williams for plaintiff, Farnsndis
| for defendant.
Thomas G. Basshor & Co. vs.. Whiteford,
slemmer II Co., 3 cases; Judgment confessed.
! Farnandis and Robinson for plaintiffs, VAN
Bibher for defendants.
Same VS.. W. Scott Whteford same entries.
John A. Hanna VS.. Michael II. Fisher; judy
ment by default. Gilbert for laintif.
A. b. Whitelock, administrator OF Mary A.
Stevens; vs. James Whtelock; Judgment by de-
fault NanBibber for plaintiff.
Martha j. Rampley VS.. Thomas e. Bull oil.
| Williams for plaintiff, Lee for defendant
Hartman, Bach u Co. VS.. Henry Fulford !;
Judgment confessed. Williams for plaintiffs,
II. W. Archer, Jr., for defendant.
Gaar, Scott " Co. VS.. Fillmore Rogers and
others; judgment by default. Harlan &
| Webster for plaintiffs.
John T. Harkins vs.. VIM. Foundes, garnishee
of Joseph and Ellen w. Eckert; Judgment
| VanBibber for plaintiff
! Listers Chemical Works VS.. W Barton iudg-
ment by default. Williams for plaintiff
| Frank Grill We. Harry james off. Williams
for plaintiff, Harlan & Webster for defend.
dant.
The following cases were transferred to the
stet docket:
Henry c. Nesbtt VS.. Evan I. Hughes; A B.
Farquhar VS.. Corbin Amos Isaac Deckman vs.
John Daugherty; David Deckman vs.. John
Daughsrty Samuel II. Gibson We. p, W. and
b. Railroad Co.; A. b. Farquhar vs.. Z. L. Heck /;
James l.. Burke Va. Patrick Prendibe; Thur.