Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1905-03-24
Circuit Court.

convened on Monday last, Judge Hender
son on the Bench, who delivered the fol
lowing brief charge to the grand jury:
Gentlemen OF the Grand Jury:
You have doubtless paid close attention
70 the terms OF the oath that you have taken
and realize that strict adherence to the
provisions OF that oath will result in full
and sufficient discharge of your duties a.
grand jurors; 1t is therefore unnecessary to
amplify on that subject.
have not been informed that during the
interval OF three or four months which has
elapsed since the last term Of Court thai
there have been any offences occurring In
TINS county OF any very grave enormity, 10
TACT my Information Is that comparatively
lew cases will be brought before you fol
consideration, and that your duties will
probably be light-comparatively light and
easy, and will therefore be short.
Under this condition OF things, gentlemen
1t will become your duty, and no doubl
your pleasure, TO expedite the session OF the
grand jury as much az possible. In view oil
the fact that the tax rate in this county ID
increasing with constant rapidly, 1t there.
fore becomes the duty Of every citizen who
10 charged with the exercise of q public
function 10 see that those duties are dis
charged, and that in the discharge of those
duties there is as little expense as is con.
eistent with the proper performance Of them
hope you will bear this In mind and that
you will go Immediately and vigorously to
work to get through the work Of the session
as rapidly as possible.
The Court is required to bring TO the spe
cial attention of the gentlemen OF the Jury
the provisions of the Act in reference 70
abortion and attempt of abortion, and to the
Act against defaulting collectors. II 1t should
become necessary to apply the provisions Of
these Acts u any facts that shall be brought
before you, that shall be supplied by the
States Attorney.
don't think, gentlemen, there is any
thing more that can say TO you, you may
therefore retire TO your room and get to
work as soon as possible.
The two juries are comprised In the fol-
lowing lists:
Grand Jury-Rich'd Poole, foreman; VIM.
e. Counselman, Roger B. Farquhar, VIM.
G. Bellison, Chas. H. Dreamer, John Boni-
FAINT, Percy l.. Pyles, VIM. A. Bogley. Ed
ward D. Wsrheld, Thomas Vinson. Robert
M. Mullinix, Crittenden II. Walker, Eras.
mus W. Jones, Maurice W. Downes, Rich d
Seek, Jas. A. Mullican, Jacob r. Umstead,
Ohio G. Ward, Isaac s. Hendry, Octavius
o. Baker, Gustavus F. Cashell, Harry L..
Watkins, Samuel D. Byrd.
Petit Jury-George M. Wolfe, zachariah
W. Page, Samuel T. Grimes, Geo. F. Leap.
ley, Norman Wootton, Thomas j. Veirs,
Aubrey Green, Robert d. sherwood, Ed
mund G. Davis, Howard Nice. NARROW, E.
Lloyd Fawcett, Lucian T. Walters, Walter
F. Cashell, Jas. s. NARROW, Israel g. War
field, Jr., Alexander G. Carlisle, Perry A.
Gloyd, Thomas G. Ward, Amos W. Magru.
der, Charles T. Brosius, Jos. M. Etchison,
VIM. H. Mannakee, Charles NJ. Clark, Seth
W. Warfield, Thomas W. Waters.
The following cases have been disposed Of
up to the present time:
Jonathan Baker, appellant, vs.. Cooke ID.
Luckett, verdict for the appellant.
Henry E. Selby vs.. Maria L. Coe, judg
ment below affirmed with costs.
Aldridge M. Butt vs.. John Posey, judg.
ment affirmed with coats sbove and below.
Robert Richardson Us. Samuel d. Devil
bess, appellee, verdict Tor appellee for $3.50
George W bIeads VS. Wallace e. Rick
etts, appellee, verdiS for sppeilee for $35.
John P. Sellman, administrator, VS.. Gin
cInnatus Hall, appellee. coz aued at the
cost Of the appellee
Samuel o. Dorsey vs.. Basil B Crawford,
settled and of.
Ida ]. Dronenburg vs.. Clinton M. Moore
and John W. Moore, judgment for 1891 "a.
Annie Smith, executrix, VS.. Nathan K.
sheckles, judgment for $195.
Deering Harvester Company vs.. George
Savage, Judgment for $11O 10.
The Warder Bushnell and Glessner Com
pany vs.. Geo. Savage, judgment for $l63 81.
Deering Harvester Company vs. Emma
D. Hughes and Eugene Hughes, judgment
for $95 10.
Horace d. Waters vs.. Frank r. Martin and
J. Martin, judgment for $123 IA.
Helen G. Morgan VS.. Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad Company, motion for rule security
for costs and motion granted.
John W. Stephens, appellant, vs.. Estie
Cooley, verdict for the appellant.