Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1895-11-15
ORDER OF PUBLICATION.
Louis Mackall, Plaintiff
VS..
Paul Urcinolo, Defendant,
In the Circuit Court for Montgomery county,
No. 1851 Equity

TNHE OBJECT of this suit is to enjoin the
l. defendant, Paul Urcinolo, bis agents,
servants and employees from continuing to OBJ
struct right-of-way extending from the
plaintiffs farm in Montgomery county, Mary
land, over the lands of the defendant and
Cornelia r. Truesdale TO public highway.
That the plaintiff is now and since the
month of November, A. D., 1854, has been
seezed in fee simple of a large and valuable
farm situate in the county of Montgomery and
State of Maryland which is particularly de-
cIibed in a 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.
a, folios g. &c.
eel of land situate in said county, adjacent to
the plaintiffs said farm, which is particular
ly described in 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 Lber J. A No. 40,
folio 384.
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 abutting upon certain public
highway there situate, which land is partic-
ularly described in deed from Alexander
Burns and wife TO her, dated the 10th day of
December, A. D., 1892, and recorded among
the Land Records of said county in Liber J
A, No. Sc, folio 1873.
That the plaintiffs agents, servants and en-
ployes at all times and members of PLAINTIFF
family during portions of each year reside
upon the plaintiffs said farm, that a large
portion thereofis under cultivation and that
the plaintiff derives therefrom annually q
large amount of oats, corn, rye, vegetables,
dairy products, poultry and eggs, a large part
OF which is sold or consumed by the plain
tiff in the city Of Washington and 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 aud
which, unless promptly conveyed thereRrom,
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 farm aud long prior thereto there was
and still is a way aud road leading from the
plaintiff said farm over the lands now 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 themsel YES and his
and their servants and agents with horses
aud wagons TO go and return at his or their
| free will and pleasure for the more convenient
occupation and enjoyment of his said farm.
That on or about the 10th day of October.
| A. D., 1885, the defendant closed up the said
way through his said land by telling and
| placing large trees across the same aud thus
deprived and sill continues to deprive the
| plaintiff of the use and enjoyment of said
way in any manner.
That by reason of the obstruction and
closing up Of said way by the defendant, as
aforesaid, the plaintiff is compelled 10 haul
the products o! his said farm to market by a
much longer and more circuitous road by
which he is greatly Inconvenience and sub b.
.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 yet the
same would be attended with great delay and
would involve multiplicity of suits for the
same cause Of action, aud the defendant be.
even if the plaintiff should bring an action a
law against him for obstructing said way on
the law side Of this Court il would be impos
siole 10 have process therein served upor
him.
That the plaintiff and defendant reside il
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 Cour
for Montgomery county, in Equity, that thu
plaintiff, by causing copy Of this order t
be inserted in some newspaper printed ant
published in said Montgomery county, one
in each of four successive weeks before tn
seventh day of December, A. D., 1896, Civ
notice 10 the said non-resi dent defendant
Paul Urcnoo, of the object and substance o
! this bill, and warning him TO appear in thi
} Court, in person or by solicitor, on or 5efor
the 23d day Of December next, to show cause
, if any he has, why decree ought not to b
! passed as prayed.
JAMES ANDERSON, Crk
Circuit Court for Montgomery county.
True copy-Test
noy ibid JAMES ANDERSON Cpk