The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1907-06-06
of the law so as to reach

amendment of the law so as to reach
such cases.
all proper questions, and the State puts
its whole power behind you to enforce
your rights. Absolute fearlessness Of
consequences should be your attitude.
There are some Statutes which are
required to be laid before you at each
term. | will leave their further expla-
nation to the States Attorney. They
are Art. q, Sec of Public General
Laws on Abortion; Art. 81, Sec. AZ. on
Defaulters; Art. SO, Sec 80, on Fish
ing out OF season, and the Act of 1902,
ch. l24, as to the Mining Regulations.
also dlrect your attention to Sec. 10of
ch. 294 of the Acts of 1906 which makes
tia mlsdemeanor to carelesslY, negligent
ly, wdfully or maliciously to set on fire
any wood, bush, grass, grain or stubble
on land not the property of the person
80 DONG. This is a very salutary pro-
vision intended to protect our rapidly
disappearing forests and other property
and vlolaterS of it should be dealt with
promptly and thoroughly.
In Glsmlsslng you to your room the
Court desires to say that the personnel
ana character of your members justifies
the expectation of short, painstaking,
thorough and conscientious session.
The several. dockets We're called and
motions made and judnments entered
In uneontested cases. The original
docket contains ~ cases, the appeal
docket numbers l6 and the trial calen-
dar has Y cases of all sorts, sizes and
kinds with which the court and bar will
wrestle for some time to come.
APPEAL DOCKET.
No. l. J. W. Beckman and Bro. VS..
John F. Nydegger; appeal from Justice
Gender, where there was a judgment in
favor of Nydegger for $7l.24 Tried
before the Court and held sub curia.
Hamill and Semmes-Peddicord
No. 2. j. w. Beckman e. Bro. VS..
William D. Nydegger; appeal from Jus
tee Gender, where there was judg-
ment m favor of Nydegger for ST.. "a.
Tried before the Court and held sub
curia. Hamill and Semmes- Peddicord.
No. 3. Donald Simpson VS.. Arch. Cas-
teel. Put at the,end of the trial docket
on motion Of the appellee Thayer and
Renninger-Hamll.
No. 4. Elvira Holiday VS.. H. j. Win
termuth; appeal from Justice Leon
Hardie; motion by appellee to quash
proceedings; motion heard and held sub
cuIia.
No. 5. Marion c. Hoye, assignee of
John Shartzer, VS.. The Garrett County
Telephone Company. This was suit
on an account for 500. 20 claimed by John
Shartzer for services rendered to the
Maryland, West Virginia & Peunsylva-
mia Telephone Company before the said
company sold out to the Garrett County
Telephone Company The testimony
showed that the old company denied any
Indebtedness to Shartzer and The pres
ent company denied that it had ever
assumed the payment of the claim or
promised to pay it. Tried before the
Court and held sub curia. This was an
appeal from Justice Teats, who decided
in favor of the Garrett Telephone Com
pany. S. F. Hamill and Semmes Ped
dicord.
No. 6. Cora V. Savage VS.. Swift e.
Co.; entered settled.
No. 7. Frank W. Wildeson VS.. Nah
Ion Glotfelty appeal dismissed by order
of appellants attorney. Hamill-Ren-
ringer & OfTutt.
No. 8. Stuart F. Hamill, Trustee, VS..
A. E. Bosely; appeal from Justice Teats,
who rendered a judgment for the de-
PENDANT, ..Bosely, The appellant asked
for continuance on account of absent
witness. Case continued at cost of ap-
pellant. Hamill and Semmes- Peddi-
cord.
No. 9. George H. Mitchell VS.. L. T.
Friend; appeal from Justice Hoye; ac-
ton for damages for breach of contract
to furnish lumber; judgment below in
favor of Friend; tried before the Court
and held sub curia. Whitworth-Ped-
dicord.