The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1911-09-23

i
feel qualified tc conduct it alone
and asked that the proceedings be
, dismissed, which tine Court order
ed. Scarcely had it done so, when
MIR. Andrews appeared, and the
Court, out of consideration for
Mrs. Harriott, recalled it's order,
and the hearing OF the case pro-
cetded.
Mr.. Andrews argued that as
Mrs. Harriott was the defendant
on appeal the burden was on the
petitioners and Commissioners to
show that the road was designed
to serve public rather than private
use. Messrs. Hess and Haines
argued that the action of the Com
missioners in ordering the open
ing of the road was final and cited
decisions OF the Court of Appeals,
which they maintained supported
their contention. Mr.. Andrews
held that it would appear that the
road served private rather than
lpubllc use, and that the Commits
sioners acted beyond their au-
thority in ordering its location.
The question at issue was one of
fact, and the appeuan. did not
wish the case decided on a techni-
cality. The Court finally held that
where property was taken for pub
lie use as in the present case, the
burden of proof rested upon the
petitioners to establish such pub
lie use.
After the recess the taking of
testimony began before the full
Bench, the petit jurors having
been finally discharged in the
morning. Assistant Treasurer
John Fl. Terrell produced the pc
tltlon for the opening of the meet
ing of the Commissioners, at which
the examiners were appointed, and
stated that they were residents of
Cecil county. William b. Davis,
OF Cecilton, one OF the examiners,
was called and told of viewing the
ground and deciding that the
road should be opened as well to
provide access to the boatyard as
to serve the people Of Back Creek
Neck with a shorter route than
the one in use, reading the exami-
ners' conclusions as set out in
their report. In reply to questions
| by Mr.. Clayton, Mr.. Davis stated
that when he served as examiner
he held two bonds of the Deibert
Boatyard Company for $Ioo each,
bearing 3 per cent interest, the
issue being secured by a mortgage
on the Deibert plant. The bonds
were later converted into preferred
stock. He was also a stockholder
nt the National Bank of Chesa-
peake City which also held bonds
or stock OF the Deibert Company.
County Engineer w. D. Hines
showed the plot of the road made
from the survey which he had
made of its route over the Har-
/ rlott, Deibert and Bennett lands.
| MIR. Bennett had showed the wit
ness tree on the Deibert land
marking the dividing line between
it and the Bennett land.
The Court here observed that
as Mr.. Davis was shown to hold
bonds on stock in the Deibert Co.
when serving as examiner he was
disqualified, and as the Board was
thus not properly constituted Of
disinterested persons its work was
invalid. The Court did not as
sumo that his interest in the Del
bert Company swaved Mr.. Davis
| judgment, but that interest dis
qualified him from service. MIR.
| Haines argued at length and cited
authorities to show that Mr.. Da-
Wis interest in the Deibert con-.
Germ was only an equitable one
and not a vested one, such as the
| Code section cited contemplated.
He spoke of the hardship that
would result from the non-opening
or delay in opening the road, and
argued that the Court could order
the plot altered and the route of
the road taken off the Deibert
land. Mrs. Harriott's interests
would be fully subserved by such
an interference by the Court.
Judge Adkins suggested that
perhaps counsel for the appellant
might see their way clear to waive
the advantage given them by the
technical disability of Mr.. Davis,
but Mr.. Andrews replied that Mr.
| Davis disability was established by
his own admission, and the appel
LIANT was constrained TO press her
advantage. Judge Pearce then di-
rected the clerk to enter "Order