The aegis & intelligencer. [volume] (Bel Air, Md.) 1864-1923, 1895-05-17
GRAND JURY.


Christopher Wilson, w. F. Henderson,
William Dallam, Jr., John L. Galley,
Bennett V. Nelson, Alfred King,
George T. Hanna, Henry G. Walker,
William E. Nichols, Jacob limerick,
john Henry Mitchell, Alfred Z. Edge,
Charles II. Chesney, Hugh A. Boyle,
Rudolph Lay, Joshua Ii. Matthews,
Albert Lof1in, Henry s. Riley,
John ii. Mckee, J ohm Mcdonald,
Benjamin A. Slade, Walter NJ. Smith.
James s. Barrow,
PETIT JURY.
Robert Z. Morgan, Morris Brown,
Edward II. d. Pue, George w. Davis,
s. A. Whiteford, Joseph b. Hanway,
BENJAMIN Cole, Richard s. McNutt,
John B. Cummings, } Ohm +. DeRan,
Thomas NJ sumption, William l.. Derrickson,
N. w. s. Hays, ID. Trainor Archer,
E. Carvil Tolley, Jesse A. Price,
Samuel Deets, James Troutner,
Sias Hall Wilson, William Il. Jackson,
Lorenzo W. Foard, Charles K. Preston,
George w. Morgan. j. Fred. Mattingley.
William N. Cathcart,
disappearance, special trial and imparlanc
dockets were then called and the following
cases on the special trial docket were set for
trial.
j. w. Price vs.. Philadelphia. Wilmington
and Baltimore Railroad Camden National
Bank VS.. NJ. Ella Hinchman, garnishee. three
cases Hinchman vs. Grant Stockham Thos.
II. Roberts vs.. j. b. Hanway, garnishee, ct al:
Thurston & Ravenel VS.. same s. b. Henri
ques We. A. F. Brown Woodbridge Fertilizer
Co. VS.. j. f. Crew Peter G. Boyd vs.. Gamer
on and Gallup Stockham & Harlan, adm'rs.,
VS.. Clara +. Stockham ct al. Boston Fish Co.,
VS.. NJ. Ella Hinchman State, use of Young
and Hancock, VS.. Ellen and I. +. Heaps :;
Grant Stockham VS.. Agricultural Insurance
Company James X. Hamilton VS.. same :;
Hester Hess, admir-, w. Harrison Hopper :; j.
b. Boyd VS.. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad ; II.
G. Richardson VS.. 4. e. Day ct al; z. G. Boyd
VS.. NJ. }. Cameron ct al. Mary Turner VS.. X. n.
Rampley: Taylor and Archer adm'rs. vs. jew
ems & Bayless; same VS.. Michael and Stockham;
State, use of Hancock, Vs. Forwood and Bar
row; K. e. Richardson VS.. Emma Barnes,
admir-; Seth Smith VS.. G.. w. Baker: Il. Ii.
Peasants, Jr., VS.. Preston and Lemon Amos
Spencer VS.. s. j. Seneca: A. L. Bradley VS..
Washington Barton ; E. F. kirwan Manufac-
turing Company VS.. William Forwood 81 Son;
Merchants National Bank VS.. same; William
F. McNutt, administrator, VS.. Deckman and
MARYLAND Franklin Pennington VS.. j. III. and
s. Patterson same VS.. j. H. Patterson Second
National Bank VS.. Z. T. Gilbert: same VS..
Mary j. Hanna ct al; II. Clay Nelson VS.. Bak-
er & Morgan State, use of Cameron and Gal
lup VS.. Peter e. Boyd ct al; Il b. holland VS..
II. ID. Farnandis, garnishee; Schlaich & Gill
bough vs.. G. W. Baker, garnishee same VS..
s. j. Seneca, garnishee same vs.. G. w. Har-
ward, garnishee Slas V. Miller VS.. Eleanor
5. Armacost.
Upon the call of the docket the following
cases were disposed of:
John w. Smith vs. Maggie A. and G. NJ.
Barton judgment confessed for $l2O. j. w.
McNabb for plaintiff, j. NJ. McNabb for de-
PENDENT
Roche Il Co., VS.. George w. Chenworth
judgment by default. j. NJ. McNabb for
plaintiffs.
Hartford National Bank vs. McCourtney and
Ewing: judgment by default. Harlan &
Webster for plaintiff.
| Samuel Clement vs. John Kehoe, Charles
Crew ct al; judgment confessed as to Charles
| Crew and by default as to the other defen
dants. s. A. Williams for plaintiff Robinson
| for defendant, Charles Crew.
Hartford National Bank VS.. John Kehoe ct
al; judgment by default =. A. Williams fol
| plaintiff.
Rankin & Kane vs. Mordecai and Sarah J
| Price: judgment by default. j. NJ. McNabt
for plaintiff.
| 1T Bradley VS.. Hezekiah Daughton ;judg
ment by default. Robinson for plaintiff.
| On Tuesday the case Of Amos Spencer VS.
| Stephen ]. Seneca was taken up and tried be
fore a jury. This case grew out of the can
ming transactions OF Lee Sooy, who becam,
insolvent few years ago. An agreement wal
drawn up between Messrs. Spencer, Senecs
and Sooy under which Mr.. Seneca was to fur
nish Mr.. Sooy with cans, etc, and to sell al
of his goods, paying over one third to Mr.
Spencer on account of certain advances tt
Sooy and retaining the remaining two-third
for himself and Sooy. Mr.. Spencer sued TO
| bis third lint Mr. Seneoa claims az defeDs
that Mr.. Spencer's share had been paid by tn
taking up of certain notes. The jury Oh
| Thursday morning brought In sealed verde