The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1897-12-18
CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY.


The charge to the Grand Jury was deliv-
cred By Judge Stump. who recited the fact
tina, II minister OF North East had called his
attention to the open violation of the prohbi
ton law in that town where the officers werr
dereict in their duties. Judge Stump urged
the jury to weigh well any evidence of such
character that might come before them, and
emphasized the fact that the court proposed to
enforce all laws to its utmost power.
Judge Stump suggested to the Jury that
they examine the places provided in the
Clerks Oillce for the preservation of the land
records, to inquire into their SAFETY from fire
In most counties. he said, fire proof vaults or
safes are provided for the storing Of the 10
cords. but in our Office we have no such
protection, and the records are kept In only
ptue board cases, and in close proximity to
the stove, which is in winter necessarily kept
very hot. The building itself, he said, was
SAT. aud tlreproof, but as to the safety OF the
land records, he stated. Il question has been
rised.
The jury then retired
ADMITTED TO THE BAR.
Johc =. Poe Esq. dean Of the University Of
Mar Gland Law School, Baltimore. was then
IN reduced to the Court by John S. Writ,
Esl Mr.. Poe testified to the good character
Of law student W. d. pulver, who had passed
"A satisfactory examination for admission to
this bar in December last. and accordingly
his name was enrolled us IA member Of the
Cecil Bar
DOCKETS TAKEN UP.
The dockets were then called by Clerk of
the Court Williams.
MONDAY
NJ. II, Appeals Charles C. Devalinger vs.
S A. Foulk, use Of tho Excelsior Baking Co.
was taken up.
Appellee,s witnesses-S. A. Foulk, Mrs
Foulk, Howard W. Garrett. Appellant g
witness: Charles G. Devainger
Devalinger was represented by William
Evans, and the Excelsior Baking Company
by Albert Constable. Devalinger claimed that
the goods which they sought to collect for
from him, had been left at his place of bust
ness in Elkton by "a representative Of the
company, on storage, while the Company
claimed on the other hand that he had regu-
larly purchased the goods.
TUESDAY
The case OF Devalinger vs Elcelsior Baking
ing Company was resumed at the opening OF
Court on Tuesday. A. eleven o'clock the
jury retired and and at 1890 returned YER
dict for S43 so for the appellee-the Excelsior
Baking Company.
The next case called was-Psarce vs.. slicer
and Hartenstine- Appeal No. 10.
Appellee's witnesses John A. HarteHstine,
Eli Reiburn, Bon amin Briscoe, Granville
Pearce and H. II. Brown. The case was
continued upon the adjournment of court at
O'clock
A. L. Crothers represented Pearce and Albert
Constable was the attorney for SIicer and
Hartenstine. The case was the outcome of
the following facts-Richard j. White was
the owner OF a hay press. The year previous
to the time OF this suit he did some baling for
Pearce, and for which Pearce paid him. The
for Pearce, and was paid by Pearce as before.
Before baling for Pearce the second time,
however, White had sold his press to Slicer
and Hartenstine, and at the time OF doing the
last work, was employed by them. Harlem
slime then entered suit against Pearce for the
amount OF the bill he had paid the man White.
The point of law at issue was whether Pearce
knew of the transfer of the press to Sicer and
Hartenstine at the time he paid White. The
jury in its verdict believed that he did not
At 1890 on Wednesday the jury returned a
verdict in favor OF Pearce.
The case of State vs.. Joanna Parker, colored
indicted for the larceny of money from VIM.
b. Heatzig. William S. Evans, for State, A.
L. Crothers for prisoner.