The aegis & intelligencer. [volume] (Bel Air, Md.) 1864-1923, 1894-05-18

Norris ii. Anderson, InOmaS Miller,
w. c. BaYington, WILDER McCann.
PETIT JURY.
Aseph E. Scarborough, Nelson Scarborough,
John X. Frey, Augustus Rembold,
William II. Barnes, Frank Taylor,
Sidney c. Day, Robert L. kimble,
Charles A. Conner, James S. Calder,
Benz. w. Herring, Samuel III. Montague,
Corbin Amos Charles Allen,
Robert b McElwuin, Frederick Hinkson,
Benz. III. Silver, Isaac Amos.
Timothy Foley. Howard W. Bevard,
VIM, III, Arnold, George Crevensten,
William j. Hopkins, Joseph NJ. Page,
Jesse Burbank.
Judge Waters, in his charge to the Grand
Jury, said:
You are about entering, gentlemen, upon
an important period of labor. 1t is important
to the people of the county because questions
affecting the peace and good order of the
county depend upon the management of the
Grand Jury. 1t is customary for the court to
charge the Grand Jury. before entering upon
its duties, in regard to those duties, but in
this case, what have to say to you, gentle
men, is rather q word of caution than one of
instruction, because l know the most of you
have served in a similar capacity before. You
know what the duties OF the Grand Jury are
You know your oath calls your attention to
the fact, that when you go into your room
in that capacity you are to lay all individual
preiudices and feelings aside. You are sworn
to examine without fear, favor or affection,
and to present everything speedily as it comes
to your knowledge. Your oath compels you
to keep secret everything that shall transpire
in the jury room, and if you are in doubt
about anything, all you nave TO DO Is 10 refer
to your oath.
As word of caution, would say this to
you, gentlemen, that is, you are not to expect
that YOU shall leave nothing to the jury that
shall come after You. There was a Grand
Jury few months ago, and there Will be
Grand Jury few months hence; 1t is not tobe
expected that each Grand Jury shall do every
thing up, so nothing should be left to its sue
cessor.
There is one thing that possibly you Will
have trouble with, as others have had before
you. There maybe a great many individuals
in the county who will want their grievances
settled. \ great many personal grievances
are brought before the court to be disposed OF,
in which the State is party. No such mat
tiers should be brought before the Grand Jury.
If individuals have grievances, let them SGT
tie them between themselves. In many cases
the proper and most expeditions way would be
to indct both parties, and let the court settle
it. There will be great many people who
will want to go before you as witnesses, and
a great many who will want to have witnesses
summoned before you, in matters where no
real interest is involved. They go before a
Grand Jury simply for their own personal
and individual grievances. If a party comes
before YOU and wants to be summoned as a
witness before the Grand Jury, find out what
he knows, and if it seems to be matter Of
importance, of any real consequence, and if
what he knows seems to be proper matter
to go before the Grand jury, let him refer it
to the States Attorney to have summons
issued.
The object of the Grand Jury is to find out
what violations of the law have been commit
ted within the time limited by law. If you
find in such cases evidence that will justify
conviction, present the party without furth-
er delay; but if, after such examination, you
can find only such proof as would justify
petty trial and conviction. let it go. But
above all things, would ask you to lay aside
all personal controversies. Fights between
individuals should not go before you at all.
OF course, We all know that it naturally &C.
ours that this term of court is limited in its
session. The summer is passing and harvest
will be on in q very short time. l do not
mean to say that you are to neglect anything
that is really proper and necessary for you TO
examine but caution you not to spend your
time and the time of the court unnecessarily.
You will have evidence before you, undoubt-
eddy, IN regard to some violations of the law
which we all know have been committed i'll
the county since the last session OF the Grand
Jury. Some few very serious violations of
the law may come to your attention, and do
that you are not to fairly sift the evidence
brought before you, but so far as | know,
most of the violations are of the same charac-
ter as go before the Grand Jury from one
term to another, and do not know of any
thing that will require great deal of your
time; SO far as they do, however. take the
time required, and summon the witnesses re-
quired.
The duties of the Court and States Attor-
ney, are to instruct you, whenever you need
them, at any time, and they will be glad to
furnish you with any assistance in their pow
er, and you have the right to apply to either,
at any time.
There is one other thing that l should men-
ton. The time for taking out State licenses is
the first of May. 1t will be your duty to inquire
into the matter, and if you find that any have
neglected taking out such licenses, they
should be promptly presented.
On the call of the docket the following cases
were disposed of:
Albert Gottschalk, executor OF Louis Cahen,
VS.. Philip e. Baltzell judgment confessed for
500. s. A Williams for plaintiff, john s.
Young for defendant.
Robert NJ. Meisenheler vs.. Isaac Deckman
stet S. A. Williams for plaintiff, S. Davis
for defendant.
Joseph w. Reynolds vs. The Farmers and
Mechanics Mutual Insurance Association of
Cecil county judgment confessed for 81, 600.
Constable for plaintiff, j. w. Falls and G. G.
Crothers for defendant.
The Union Hardware Company VS.. The
Whiting Novelty Manufacturing Company /;
judgment on terms to be filed. IL. w. Archer,
Jr, for plaintiff, Dalam & Rouse for defend
ant.
James J. Corner & Co. VS.. William A. Will
son Judgment confessed for S1l9.5l. Magma
dier for plaintiff, Sitter for defendant
John s. Reese 81 Co. VS.. John Gross judg-
ment by default. VanBibber for plaintiff.
ii. w. Archer, Jr., VS.. Eli Norris, ct al;
tiff
Septimus Davis VS.. George A. Smithson ct
al; Judgment confessed for $53S7. IL. w.
Archer, Jr., for plaintiff.
James Hanlon VS.. Abraham +. Stansbury
ct al; judgment by default. S. A. Williams
for plaintiff.
The Hartford National Bank vs. Robert Fin
ney ct al; judgment confessed. S. A. Will
liams for plaintiff, Robinson for defendants !;
two cases.
The Favorite Carriage Companyvs VS.. William
s. and Robert +. Hanna judgment confessed.
Lyle for plaintiff, Dallam & Rouse for defen-
dants two cases.
The Maryland Fertilizer and Manufacturing
Company VS.. same /; judgment confessed. s.
A. Williams for plaintiff, Dallam & Rouse for
defendants.
Frank IL. Jacobs VS.. Lewis Ash /; judgment
by default. s. A. Williams for plaintiff.
The Hartford National Bank VS.. Amos J.
and Harry Il. Day; judgment by default s.
A. Williams for plaintiff.
Same VS.. Amos j. and Rachel Z. Day; judg-
ment by default. s. A. Williams for plaintiff.
Same VS.. James r. Kilgore; judgment by
default. 5. A. Williams for plaintiff.
Same VS.. Grafton Devoe judgment by de-
fault s. A. Williams for plaintiff.
The case of The Baltimore Copper Smelling
and Rolling Company VS.. The Eureka Ferti-
lizer Company of Cecil county, was taken up
on Tuesday morning. This case was brought
to recover the value of an acid boat, sold by
the plaintiff to the defendant some years ago.
The boat sprung aleak, about a month after
the purchase, while passing through the
Canal from Delaware Bay to the Chesapeake,
and had to be run aground. Part of the cargo,
which consisted of sulphuric acid, escaped
and the boat was ruined The defendant
claims the plaintiff warranted the boat to be
sound and contests the payment of the promis-
sorry notes which were given in payment
This is the third time this case has been tried
The first time, in Cecil county, the plaintiff
declined to answer when the jury came in
with their verdict and judgment of non pros.
was rendered new case was brought in
Cecil county and from thence removed to
Hartford, where 1t was tried at February term,
1893. verdict was given for full amount of
claim, but the Judgment was reversed by the
Court of Appeals and lew trial awarded.
Messrs. John s. Writ, of Cecil county r. j
Brent, of Baltimore city, and VIM. IL. Harlan
appear for the plaintiff, and Albeit Constable,
of Cecil county, James j. Archer and John ).
Dung for the defendant. The case was given
to the Jury Thursday evening.