Maryland independent. [volume] (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1874-current, 1899-05-26

The counsel to the Beard Of County Com
missioners has filed a u cotton for a new trial
in the case OF State VS. The County Commits
sioners of this county who have been found
guilty of malfeassnce in otii,e in aPpropriat-
lag sum of money which the Sta'e alleged
was for salary TO which Daniel j. Bragunier
was not entitled. The reasons given for II
new trial are as follows:
THAT the verdict in this case was
against the law.
That the verdict was against the evil
dence
3-That the verdict was against the weight
of the evidence
A. That the Court, defendants respectfully
submit, erred in predicatiug its decision, as
appeared from the language of the court ia
delivering il, entirely upon the idea that the
said defendants had allowed to said Brazunitr
certain claim against the county for s4lars
while he was contesting for his seat as count,
commissioner, and the fact is that said calm
was allowed MS much and more for actual
costs and expenses OF maintaining the suit, as
tJr aay such claim for salary; because said
actual rcgrt ,osis AMI expenses. such as were
p id oht to counsel and defendants counsel
p4tiicularlj w4Ils to sa, TO the counsel ether
tAau himself, and tor sienograpArrs employed
To assist examiners aud ex miners ices and
other court expen es, we're much in excess o
Tit amount allowed to said Braguner when
AMOUNT was nlIo ed to aid Or gunier il
liquidation tae ci,ius ff these expenses,
As well az tor any claim thai he might have t
back salary and these defendants conter6
III where an uct alleged 10 lie a crime tau
ne viewed in ;~o aspects, one uon. criminal
.ud aue crimiual, that the criminal law of
dis SITE de'nanfs thai ihAt risw shall e
taken which DOES not impute crime.
>. That plaintiff attorney, while having
general impression before the tial, is now
mole positively informed, that the said Bra
gauer did not at any time voie on an,
uotion for the allowance OF the claim referred
TO- aud that it was not proved or offered to
be proved by the State which of the said
county commissioners, II any Of said county
,ommlssion,rs voted for aug such alleged
Allowance.
6 That a piper agreed to be submitted in
evidence b, both counsel aud by the defend
ami. present in court which WAS actually
submitted, was rot considered BY the eour.
making up their verdict, nor was it consider
ed in connection with such evidence as was
giyen ORALLY in the case, by the order OF the
court, notwithsisu ling al such oral evdenee
hal been waived b. the defendants, as well
As taeS'ate The said paper was agreed to
b! 10th de.eudtDts nd the State, AS furnish
Ing tie idene upon which both sides we're
wi. sing to rest the csse. The said paper, con
sidered alone, would not have furnished suf-
6cient evidence for conviction. Tbs said
paper, considered with the oral evidence sub
mit,ed, would no. haze furnished slii lent
eyidence for ,ouyIc ioa
-The defendants contend that tn, hal
a right to pay costs aud expenses of ,h- con
test Of the case OF aragunier VS. Penn referred
to IN the evidence submitted
s-Sdd defendants say they did net pay
as muoa as such costs and expenses
3.-For these aa3 tor other -easons suo-
mite to The court 81 The trial and 70 q as,
sebei st ihe hesrios 3reuir's tc.le fully
Imo,r the gourl 70, e pes trja.
=