Evening capital. (Annapolis, Md.) 1884-1910, 1895-04-24
In THE CIRCUIT COURT.
THE ALDRTDGE-MELVIN CASE.
Action for Ejectment Ended Verdict
for the Plaintiff.


Another branch of the now famous
| Aldridge-Melvin suit WAS determined
IN the Circuit Court to-day. The pub
lie is quite familiar with the long and
tedious eqnity case which resulted in
the finding that the proper remedy az
| the heirs of Mai Giddiugs was ON the
law side OF the Court as a part Of the
redress which they sought, and which
| gave a judgment IN their Zoe for a very
| large amount OF money from " h / 9 Ii
MeSsls. Melvin and Mancha appealed.
and which appeal is now pending having
| been argued and sublaitted for decision
In the Court of Appeals. On the alst
| of September last the owners of Mcat
Annapolis property rcscindei their col-
tract with Melvin and Mancha and dis
charged them from their employment.
On the day before they were discharged
Mr.. Melvin undertook 60 make q lease
OF CeralVo Cottage, the old home 0f Mai.
| Giddings TO Il Mr.. Sleinbrenner, an lu-
mate of charity Institution In i3ati-
more city known Ms .sThe Old Mans
llome.n Miss Giddmgs, accompaniea
by Mr.. Aldridge, few DAYS after went
TO the cottage 20 look after the condi-
ton of the property, having heard thaC
Air. Melvin had moved away. but thew
were forbidden admission to the cottage
and excluded from the premises by Ma
Melvin. The tiiddings' heirs promptly
repudiated the contract OF letting which
Mr.. Melvin had undertaken to make
with Mr.. Steinbrenmer and brought the
action of ejectment which has just been
tried.
Messrs. Randall and Mtmroe repre-
sented the plaintiffs ard Messys Moss
and Magruder the defendants, one oak
smith and the said Steinbrenner, who
undertook to set up the right of posses
sion to the cottage and the surrounding
grounds. There was very little evidence
offered beyo ld proof of title and right
TO the possession on the part of the plain
tiffs but four days were spent in the at
tempt of the defendants counsel 20
exclude the proper testimony OF the
plaintiff and TO introduce. on their be-
half testimony which WAS objected TO hY
the plaintiff as lrrelvant and all OF
which was excluded by the Court. The
best part of another day was spent in
the Argument on the instructions asked
for 10y the respective counsel.
After the conclusion, of which the
Court granted instructions which practi-
cally amounted to the direction TO the
jury to find for the plaintiff. In a few
moments the jury returned with Ver-
dict in favor o! the plaintiff for the
premises mentioned in the declaration
and assessing damages for the detention.
Whereupon MIR. Hagruder rs counsel
for the defendants. demanded that tue
jury should be p0lled. There was some
argument over the manner in which the
jury should be polled and whether or
not the jurors should be permitted TO
adopt each as lis verdict, the verdict
delivered by the foreman. This was
cut short by the court sending the jury
back to their room with written form
of verdict which, if they should find,
they would be permitted TO read each as
his verdict if the jury should be again
polled. The jury promptly returned
with the same verdict III writing bat
the polling of the jury was not demand
ed ON the second call for the verdict
and the verdict was then delivered as
above stated, for tie plaintiff, Miss
Giddings for the property mentioned in
the declaration assessing damages for
its detention.