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

and which resulted In the recovery Of the
fines, one. half of which are the subject mat
ter Of this suit. 1t is impossible to conceive
what more he could have done ~ give him
the character of an informer and To entitle
him in that character to one. half the fines
recovered IN cases where the indictments
were based upon his evidence. In his action
in these cases not one single element that Is
necessary to constitute him an informer has
been omitted, and his claim to the fund in
Court must be sustained.
1t Is commended, however, on the part Of
the County Commissioners, that under the
peculiar circumstances of this case the costs
of these proceedings should be paid out OF
the fund. With this contention, however
am unable to agree. Had the defendant
in its answer to the bill Of lnterpleader,
made the same answer that was subsequent
ly lied to the bills OF the plaintiffs and sus
tanned such allegation by proof, or had there
been an absence Of proof to contradict such
allegation, there can be no question that the
costs OF these proceedings should be paid
out of the fund in controversy. But, as we
have seen, the record shows that an entirely
different position was taken, and that the
County Commissioners asserted right to
this money, which made 1t necessary for the
evidence shows that not only was the claim
thus made wholly invalid, but that the de-
PENDANT could, by the exercise oil the least
possible diligence, have ascertained that the
county had no interest whatever In the fund.
An inquiry OF the States Attorney would
have at once ELECTED the information that
these indictments were predicated upon tes'
timony voluntarily given by person who
had assumed the character of an intOrmer
that in such cases the nformer is entitled TO
one hall the fines recovered, and that In the
particular cases In question the lntormer was
either Mr.. Emmons or Mr.. Choate. In this
condition OF the case II was matter of no
concern to the defendant which of them
should receive the informers share OF the
fines. That was question for the Sheriff
to determine, or, in case Emmons and Choate
should continue the contest inter Sc, he
would have had the right, by u bill OF inter
pl eader, to refer the dispute to the Court for
Diet ermination. II ls not right that the
amount due the informer should be depleted
by the costs OF litigation, which was the di.
rect result o: the action of the defendant
and which the record shows was wholly I'M
necessary, and it follows that the County
Commissioners having asserted claim
which has been shown ~ DO untenable and
having been d efeated 10 the litigation In
duced by its claim, must accept the usual
legal consequences Of such failure and pay
the costs Of the suit. The Sheriff, however
was mere stalk eholder of the fund, and the
answer OF the defendants to his bill Of inter
pleader having demonstrated the necessity
Tor his resort to that proceeding, he is emit
tied under the we'll recognized rule OF equity
practice TO have the expenses incurred by
him in filing such bill paid out OF the fund
in dispute, and therefore reasonable fec
will be allowed to his solicitor for his serv
ices in preparing the paper necessary u
bring the contending parties into this Court
for the adjudication OF the contest.
1t follows, from what has been said, that
a decree will be passed directing the CLERK
of this court to pay to the plaintiff, Howard
.. Emmons, the sum OF four hundred and
seventy five dollars, deposited with him by
the direction OF the decree heretofore passed
less the sum OF twenty. five dollars, to bt
paid to the Solicitor for the Sheriff, and thai
the defendant corporation pay all the costs
OF the suit.
Signed, JAMES b HENDERSON,
Judge of Circuit Court for
Montgomery county.