Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1898-11-25

| OF cases for violation of the local option law
has been decided by the Court in favor of
Emmons. In this case Mr.. Emmons was
represented by Messrs. Arthur Peter and
Frank Higgins. Messrs. Bowie F. Waters
and Alex. Kilgour, States Attorney, ap-
peared for the County Commissioners.
Judge Henderson has filed the following
opinion in the case
In the Circuit Court for Montgomery county,
No. 1888 Equity.
Horton G. Thompson, Sheriff, plaintiff, VS..
Howard o. Emmons, Warren Choate and
The County Commissioners of Mont
gomery county, defendants.
On the 7th day of July, 1898, Mr.. Horton
G. Thompson, the sheriff of this county,
hled his bill of interplesder in this Court,
stating that he had in his hands the sum OF
four hundred and seventy five dollars, be-
ing one hall the amount of certain fines col
lected by him from persons who had been
convicted in the Circuit Court for Mont
gomery county OF violations of Sections 1873
and 1874 OF Article l6 of the Code of Public
Local Laws OF Maryland, known as the
Local Option Law OF Montgomery county,
in the several cases specifically mentioned
in the bill and that the defendants, Emmons
and Choate, claimed one half OF said sum of
money as informers under the provisions of
Section of Article 80 OF the Code oil Public
General Laws of Maryland, which provides
shat all fines, penalties and forfeitures, when
recovered, shall be paid to the county or city
where the same be imposed, unless directed
to be paid otherwise by the law imposing
them; but if there be an informer he shall
have one half, unless otherwise provided this
section not to apply to fines or forieltures at
| common law" and further stated that the
| County Commissioners OF Montgomery coun-
ty claimed that neither Emmons nor Choate
was the informer in any or either of said
cases, and that therefore, by virtue Of the
said statute the county was entitled to said
sum Of money, and praying that the defend
ants might be required TO interplead. To
this bill the defendant, Emmons, filed an
answer asserting his claim to said money,
as the intormer in the several cases, and set
ting forth in detail the grounds OF his claim.
The defendant, Choate, filed an answer con-
firming the statements made by Emmons in
his answer, AZ the basis OF the latter's claim
as iniormer, and alleging that all he had
done in the transaction was, at the request
and as the agent Of Emmons, to secure for
the latter an interview with the States At
torney in order that he might through the
lnterpositlon OF that official obtain access to
the Grand Jury and present to that body
the Information he had obtained with refer
ence To the violations of the local option
law, and that he, Choate, Was advised by
his solicitor to claim one half the fines ~
intUrmer by reason Ol the interview he had
with the STATES Attorney in order to arrange
Tor meeting between that official and En-
nous.
The County Commissioners flied an an
swer admitting that l., claimed the money,
and alleging that SAID indictments and con-
VctiOns resulted iron the efforts OF officials
of the county charged with the detection of
crime, and by a number OF citizens OF the
county interested 10 the enforcement OF the
local option law, and wholly without any
assistance IRON said Choate or Emmons, in
the capacity OF iniormers, in the sense, mean
ing and intent of SAID statute.
Alter the fling OF these answers, " wit,
on the 9th of September, 1893, a decree was
passed directing the defendants TO inter
plead, and constituting the defendants, EN-.
mons aud Choate, plaintiffs, and the County
Commissioners of Montgomery county the
defendant in the proceedings to be had un
der the decree OF interpleader. Pursuant to
| this decree Messrs Emmons and Choate
have filed bills taking substantially the same
grounds set forth in their answers TO the bill
OF interpleader, and In effect, alleging that
the plaintiff, Howard o. Emmons, was the
intormer in the cases referred to.
In TACT, there is no real inconsistency In
their claims Mr.. Choate is u member and
an officer Of the Anti Saloon League OF
Montgomery county, one Of the objects oil
which Is 10 prevent the sale OF intoxicating
liquors in Montgomery county by securing
the arrest and Conviction Of the violatOrs oil
the local option law, and Mr.. Emmons was
acting as an agent of the League in detecting
violations OF the law, and presenting the
proper evidence OF such violations 10 the
Grand Jury oil the county, and If necessary
testliying at The trial OF the Indictments
found by that body.
Both were working IN the same interest
and each avows his purpose To pay over the
fines collected by him rs intormer 10 the
League To further the purposes OF that or
ganizaIion, so that II was immeterial 10
which OF these agents Of the League the
money should be paid. The fact that Mr..
Choate procured Tor Mr.. Emmons an in
lerview with the States Attorney did not
10 any sense make Choate the informer in
these cases, because an niOrmer is one who,
with the intention OF having his iniorma'
ton acted upon, first gives such informa'
ton Of a violation OF the law as induces
prosecution and contributes 10 the recovery
of the ne, penalty or forfeiture. Mr.. Choate
does not allege that he gave such lniorma-
tion and the evidence In this case shows
not only that he did not, but that he could
not have given 1t because he did not possess
il. IL is clear that his claim was only pre-
ferred through an excess OF caution, ana
that he was at any time entirely wiling TO
wave his claim IN favor OF that OF Mr.. EN-
mons had the County Commissioners with
drawn It's claim W the fund. la the answer
OF the County .nisslOners, however, an
entirely new departure is made. Whereas,
10 the bill Of lnterpeader, II Is camel that
the county is entitled 10 the money, and that
neither EmmOns nor ChOate was an in
former 10 any or either OF said cases, ia the
answers flied W the bills Of complaint OF
Emmons and ChOate, II alleges that It has
never claimed the SUN vi money which IL
the subject matter OF this suit, but has relied
wholly upon Horton q. Thompson, the
sheriff OF said county, TO distribute and pay
the same " the persons who are entitled
thereto" This, ia view Of the admissions
| made IN the previous answer, Is most re
| markabie allegation, and would seem 10 Ia
| yIte the SUGGESTION that the defendant Is
triHing with the Court by fatty repudlating
an answer deliberately made, which was
the foundation Tor the decree OF nterpleader
10 this cause. Both OF these Inconsistent
allegations cannot be true. Ia view Of the
pleadlngs and evidence 10 this cause II can
be safely asserted that II the defendant had,
10 the first place, assumed towards the fund
In question the attitude in which II seeks W
place itself in the last answers filed this
controversy would have long since been set
tied without any litigation by the payment
of the money 10 the real inormer IN the
case and as have already minated, there
never has been any real conflict between the
claims Of Mr.. Choate and that Of Mr.. En-
mons, both havlug consistently concurred
10 the assertion that the latter gave the Ia
formation which induced the prosecutions,
and had the defendant in the first instance,
left the determination OF the question en-
trely to the Sheriff that official would have
had no difficulty In reaching conclusion
The contention that the indictments and