Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1895-11-22
ORDER or Publication.
Louis Mackall, Plaintiff
VS..
Paul Urcinolo, Defendant,
In the Circuit Court for Montgomery county.
No. 1851 Equity

TNHE OBJ ECT OF this suit is to enjoin the
IL defendant, Paul Urcin olo, his agents,
| servants and employees from continuing to OBJ
struct a right-of-way extending from the
plaintiff farm in Montgomery county, Mary
land, over the lands Of the defendant and
Cornela X. Truesdale 10 a public highway
That the plaintiff is now and since the
month of November, A. D., 1854, has been
| seezed in fee simple of large and valuable
farm situate 10 the county of Mon tgomery and
Stale of Maryland which is particularly de-
scribed in deed from Harriet Caroline Mack
all to him, dated the - day of November,
a. D., 1854, and recorded among the Land
Records of said county in Lioer J. G. H., No.
4, folios o, &c.
That the defendant is the owner of par
eel Of land situate in said county, adjacent to
the plaintiffs said farm, which is particular
ly described in a deed from George N. Beall
and wife to the defendant, dated the 9Th day
Of May, A. D., 1895, and recorded among
said Land Records in Liber j a No. 40,
folio 1874.
That certain Cornelia Riggs Truesdale is
the owner of parcel of ground situate in
said county adjacent to the said land of the
defendant and ting upon certain public
highway there situate, which land is partic-
uarly described in a deed from Alexander
Burns and wife TO her, dated the 18th day of
December, A. D., 1892 and recorded among
the Land Records of said county in Liber J
A, No. SO, folio 1873.
That the plaintiffs agents, servants aud en-
ployes at all times and members of plaintiffs
family during portions of each year reside
upon the plaintiffs said farm, that large
portion thereof is under cultivation and that
the plaintiff derives therefrom annually
large amount Of oats, corn, rye, vegetables
dairy products, poultry and eggs, large part
of which is sold or consumed by the plain
tiff in the city of Washington aud District of
Columbia, and that the plaintiff now has upon
his said farm large amount of the products
thereof which are now ready to be conveyed
TO market, and that there are at all times
other valuable products arising from said
farm which are in their nature perishable and
which, unless promptly conveyed therefrom,
are liable to become a total loss to the plain
tiff.
That in the month of November, A. D.,
1854, when the plaintiff first acquired title to
his said faI IN and long prior thereto there was
aud still is a way and road leading from the
plaintiff said farm over the lands no owned
by the defendant and the said Truesdale to
and into said public highway which said way
and road the plaintiff and those under whom
he claims from time immemorial have had
and used and have been accustomed to have
and use for himself and themselves and hi.
and their servants and agents with horses
and wagons to go and return at his or their
free will and pleasure for the NOR convenient
occupation and enjoyment of his said farm.
That on or about the 10th day of October,
A. D., 1895. the defendant closed up the said
way through his said land by telling and
placing large trees across the same aud thus
deprived and still continues to deprive the
plaintiff of the use and enjoyment of said
way in any manner.
nf nhgtr nnJ
closing up of said way by the defendant, as
aforesaid, the plaintiff is compelled TO haul
the products o! his said farm TO market BY a
much longer and more clrcuitous road by
which he is greatly Inconvenience and sub
ected to much trouble, and that the value of
his said property is greatly deprecated there
by, and that the road he is thus compelled to
use passes through lands over which he has
no right-oi-way except by permission OF the
party renting the same, and that if this per-
mission should at any time be refused he
would have no outlet from his said farm and
no means 10 convey the products thereof there
| from.
That the plaintiff though he might have a
| remedy at law against the defendant for his
wrongful act in obstructing said way vet the
same would be attended with great delay and
would involve a multiplicity Of suits for the
same cause of action, aud the defendant be-
| iuR u IeSlueuA Vi Tue OI
even if the plaintiff should bring an action at
Flaw against him for obstructing said way on
the law side of this Court il would be impos-
sble 10 have process therein served upon
| him.
That the plaintiff and defendant reside in
the city OF Washington and District OF Co.
lumbia
1t is thereupon this ninth day of Novem-
Der, A D., 1895, ordered by the Circuit Court
for Montgomery county, in Equity, that the
plaintiff, by causing copy of this order to
be inserted in some newspaper printed and
4 published in said Montgomery county, once
in each of four successive weeks before the
seventh day of December, A. D, 1895, give
notice 10 the said non.resi dent defendant,
Paul Urcinolo, OF the object and substance Of
this bill, and warning him to appear in this
Court, in person or by solicitor, on or before
the 23d day of December next, 10 show cause,
if any he has, why decree ought not TO be
passed as prayed.
JAMES ANDERSON, Clk
Circuit Court for Montgomery county
True copy-Test
nov l5-td JAMES ANDERSON, CPk.