The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1909-03-06

would not sell. He offered to rent il
for 81. so n month, which covered the
ground rent, Mr.. Murray never for
mally rented the stable. but kept on
occupying il. and 81 months rent was
now due Mr. Alexander's check and
| Mr.. Posts receipt were offered in evil
dcncc. Justice II. II. Gilpin told OF
Mr.. Alcxandcr's taking distress pro-
ccedings against Mr.. Murray, on May
| ". 1907. at which Mr.. Post was a wit
ness. Mr. Warburton objected TO the
substance oi Mr.. Posts testimony be
! ing given. and was sustained He then
asked the Court to instruct the jury, as
no evidence to support an action OF
distress (such as the papers in the
casc) had been produced, 10 find for
the appellee. but Mr.. Crothcrs asked
| i"r judgment OF non pros which was
entered. leaving the appellee free TO
renew his suit
Court next took up n series oi at
tachmcnt cases on the Appeal docket
David llankcS vs. Armstrong, Squicr
& Co and others and John IT. Arm
strong & Co and others. and c. J.
Rhode x Co against the same parties.
| Rhode 4 Son were saw mill operators
working in ELK Neck. Bankcs came
there with number oi horses, mules
and wagons and later went to Penn
| ,ylyanih. where he remained. leaving
| the teams and owing balances oi $50
| ard So on bills due to Armstrong.
Squicr x Co. and J. H. Armstrong &
! CO. The property Was seized aS be
longing to- the Rhodes but the suits
were dismissed The teams were then
attached aS those OF an abscondiug
debtor (Bankcsl and J. W. Rhode
and Charles W. Bryant, who had four
IT the animals between them Ohc rest
| having been taken to Pennsylvania
were named aS garn'Shccs and the at
tachmcnt was limited To the team in
Rhodes hands Charles f. Scigmund
| Esq, oi Scigmund < kcrbn. - Bati
more. for the appellants. Rhode & Co.
moved I" quG>h the attachments ON
the grounds that Justice Cranmcr had
no jurisdiction S:ncc the record did not
| show that the attachment notice had
! been set or posted. aS required by
| law nor had there been an appraiSc-
mcut oi the property when the levy was
made. rs required under the rulings oi
the Court 81 Appeals aud under the
! special acts 81 Assembly oi 1870. 1893
Iooo and 1909 The later acts permitted
the filing ui bond for double the
amount involved. which freed the prop
| o"t" rom the attachment Another
objection was that the Constable did
not distinguish IN the schedules be
| tween the property in Rhodes and ~
Ery%nt's hands. ard it did not appear
that they were CO o-partncrs.
Nlbcrt Constable. Esq. ior The ap-
pcllcc>. rccitcd the history oi the cases
and said that as matter oi fact
Iiankc,' being an abSconding debtor
gave Justice Craumcr jurisdiction. Tile
attachment, notice had been posted in
the po>toihcc. in the leading store and
at Leslie The statutes had been FULLY
jurisdiction had been raised below, and
the making oi appraiScmcntS with
lcyc> had not been the practice here
Mr. Scgmund. replying, said that
the record also did not show that the
attachments had been laid in the hands
ui either garniShcc
The Court consulted for some time
one member holding that the question
was fully settled. but Judge pcarcc. for
the majority suggested that the appel.
lees plea be amended by striking oui
Bryan aS garnishcc and with the
avcrmcut that notice oi attachment had
been duly set up. or posted. II the
motion to quaSh were granted. the
matter would end, II ovcrrulcd. there
would bc 4 chance for an appeal The
majority oi the Court then ovcrrulcd
the motion. and the trial Of the case
proceeded after the recess, and lasted
tin adjournment The issue turned
mainly on the ownership oi the ami.
G'a's attached. whether they belonged
TO Il: rkcs or the Rhodes. The latter
had sold them to RankcS to be paid ior
with the money due from them t. him
inr hauling. but had not been FULLY
paid ior.
WEDNESDAY