Milford chronicle., 1915-04-23

The case of DR.. Roberts against th'
Maryland, Delaware & Virginia Rail
uOad Company. which was before the
Court when this paper went to press
East week, resulted in a disagreement
by the jury 1t will have to be tried
again at another term of court.
The ejectment case, Abel Ablemar
against George w. Short, Ableman got
ahe verdict from the jury.
A case which is of interest to not
only justices of the peace, but to every
citizen, was the source of an eXhaus-
tive decision from the Court, which
was read by Judge Heisel. 1t was the
result of a petition to show why Will
Ram II. ThOrne, a justice of the peace
at SeafOrd, should not be adjudged in
contempt of the court for certain omis-
=SiOns, neglects and defaults in the
business of his office. The case was
heard at the February term, and the
decision was read last week, and it
uwin have tendency to regulate some
V0f the mistakes so commonly made by
justices of the peace. The action was
ttaken under a law which gives to the
Judges the power to examine, correct
and punish the contempts, omissions,
aneglects, corruptions or defaults of all
justices of the peace, sheriffs, coro-
mers, clerks and other officers in this
State.
The petition alleges that William H.
sThOrne, a justice of the peace in and
Tor Sussex County, on the 18th day of
January, 1915, upon proper applica-
TttiOn, issued a warrant for the arrest
of Noah H. James, charging the said
James with assault and battery; that
a1n the said day the said James was
arrested and taken before Thorne for
hearing upon the said warrant; that
ThOrne proceeded with the hearing
and imposed fine of $3.50 and costs,
amounting to S3.7O, upon the said
James, without the said James having
an writing submitted to his decision,
as by the statute required; that upon
-ahs imposition of said fines and costs
the said Thorne did not charge the
constable present with the said de-
Hendant James, as by law required, but
demanded and received from the de-
Eendant the full amount of said fine
and costs.
The petition further alleges that
1mmediately after the hearing on the
over for his appearance at the next
Court of General Sessions and to keep
The peace, and required James to pay
TO him a further sum of S1.55, the cost
of said bond
At the hearing on the rule, it was
admitted by Thorne that he did i'm
pose the fine and costs after the hear
lng upon the warrant in the assault |
zng submitted in writing to his decis- |
lOn, but stated, that while he knew the
law applicable to the case before him, |
ne failed to comply with it, because he |
understood, from the record of two or
three cases he saw in the docket of !
ms predecessor in office, it was not al |
ways done.
He denied that the fine and costs in |
The assault and battery case, or the
costs Of the bond for James appear
sance and to keep the peace were re-
Vreived by him.
The evidence showed that the fine |
and costs in both cases were paid by |
-yames placing the money upon the
desk or table behind which Thorne |
was, at the time, sitting, and that
IhUrne gave his personal receipt to
~AdneS IOr Lne Iull amount OF Jne Ine |
and costs in both cases. That the con-
stable was in the room at the time,
and that the sum so received by |
EhOrne, less Thorne's own costs, was
Immediately turned over to the con-
stable.
The law of this State relative to the
questions under consideration is found
IN Sections 1857, 1859 and 1860 of the
Revised Code.
Justices of the peace ought to know
5ihat they have no powers, or jurisdic-
islOn, excepting such as are conferred
upon them by statute, and that those
conferred by statute, can be exercised
only m the manner as provided by
statute.
The Court imposed fine of SIS and
the costs of the proceedings.