|
tip
;'V:, - 10
said, be drawn by ballot, according to the act of Assembly in such case made
and provided. And thereupon, the twenty persons being so drawn by ballot,
and written upon two list?, one of which said lists is delivered to the counsel
for the respective parties, and the counsel for each of the said parties having
stricken out four persons from the said lists, thereupon, the remaining
twelve persons, being called, come, that is to say, Benjamin Buck, Joseph
Robinson, George Maris, James Carningham, John Patterson, George
Chapman, John B. Hovvell, Samuel M. Barry, Basil S. Eider, Robert
Nielson, Samuel Keerl, and CeceliusC.Jamison, who, wAo being empannelled,
sworn, and affirmed, to say the truth in the premises, upon their oath and
affirmation do say, that the mayor and city council aforesaid are guilty
of the premises aforesaid, in manner and form as the sard John Craig
and John Barron, in the lifetime of the said John Craig, within against
them have declared; and they assess the damages of the said John Bar-
survivor of the said John Craig, by reason thereof, to the sum of
ren
four thousand five hundred dollars, current money. Whereupon, the said
John.Barron, survivor of the said John Craig, as aforesaid, prays judgment
against the mayor and city council aforesaid, of and upon the verdict by the
jurors aforesaid, in form aforesaid given; and the mayor and city council
aforesaid, by their said attorne)rs, say, that the court here ought not to pro-
ceed to render judgment upon the said verdict, and pray that judgment
against them, of and upon the said verdict, may be arrested, and file IR
Qourt here the following reasons, to wit:
BARRON, survivor of Craig, ^
vs.' >
THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE. 3 .
The defendant moves the court to arrest the judgment in this case:
1. Because no special damage is legally alleged in the declaration in this
cause.
2 Because it is not shown in the declaration what ships or vessels were
prevented from coming to the wharf of the plaintiff by reason of the deposite
and impediments mentioned in the declaration.
3. Because the injurious consequence charged in the declaration is the
obstruction of the navigation of a public river, and the plaintiff does not
allege a special damage which would entitle him to maintain an action.
JOHN SCOTT,
ROGER B. TANEY,
Attorneys for defendant.
Whereupon, all and singular the premises aforesaid being by the court
here seen, heard, and fully understood, and mature deliberation thereupon
had, for that it appears to the court here that judgment against the mayor
and city council aforesaid, of and upon the verdict by the jurors aforesaid
in form aforesaid given, ought not to be arrested, therefore, it is consider-
ed by the court here, that the said John Barron, survivor of the said John
Craig, as aforesaid, recover against the mayor and city council of Baltimore
aforesaid, as well the sum of twenty thousand dollars, current money, the
damages in the declaration aforesaid mentioned to be sustained by occasion
of the premises aforesaid, as the sum of four hundred and sixty dollars
eighteen and a third cents, by the Court here unto the said John Barron,
survivor as aforesaid, on his assent, adjudged for his costs and charges by
about his suit in this behalf laid out and expended; and the mayor and city
council aforesnid, in mercy, and so forth.
Memorandum.—Judgment was rendered in this cause on the fifth day
of May, eighteen hundred and twenty eight, for the damages laid in the
declaration, and costs ot suit, the said damages to be released on payment of
four thousand five hundred dollars, with interest from the said fifth day of
IVlay, eighteen hundred and twenty-eight, and costs.
Memorandit-.n.—Before the jurors aforesaid withdrew from the bar of
the court here, the mayor and city council aforesaid, by their attorneys
aforesaid, filed in court here the following bills of exceptions, to wit:
JOHN BARROX, jr., survivor of John Craig, 1 \ftction on the case in
vs. > Baltimore county
THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OP BALTIMORE. 3 court.
On the trial of this cause, the plaintiff, in order to support the issue on his
part, gave in evidence the plat and surveyor's explanations herewith filed;
he also gave in evidence the following ordinances, parts of ordinances, and
resolution of the corporation of Baltimore, all of which it is agreed may be
read from the printed books, viz: The first section of an ordinance passed on
the 9th of March, 1807, entitled an ordinance to appoint city commissioners,
and prescribing their dulses; Young's edition, pages 54, 55. The 8th
section of another ordinance, passed March 24th, 1813, entitled "an ordi-
nance to provide for the appointment of wardens of the port of Baltimore,
and for other purposes; same book, page 1H6." A resolution relative to
Wilk's street and Ann street, passed in July, 1815; in the same book, page
211. The third section of an ordinance for the extension of certain wharves
therein mentioned, passed April 4, 1S16; ordinance of 1816, pages 17, 18.
An ordinance directing the paving of part of Dulany street, in the city of
Baltimore, passed April 10th 1817; Ordinances of 1817, page 33. An or-
dinance for paving Wilk's street, Washington street, Castle alley, and County
street, within certain distances, and for other purposes, so as more effectually
to preserve the navigation, passed April 10th, 13l7;samebook, pages 34, 35.
A further supplement to the ordinance entitled an ordinance for preserving
the health of the city, passed December 3, 1821, chapter 103; Ordinances
of 1S22, pages 12, 13, 14. Evans's compilation, page 96. A supplement
to the last ordinance, passed March IS, 1822, chapter 36; Ordinances, 1822,
pages 49, 50. Evans's compilation, page 97. He also gave in evidence a
deed in fee simple from Frederick Mackubin, and Mary, his wife, to John
Barron, jr., and John Craig, for the property distinguished on the annexed
plat by the numbers 93, D4, 95, which binds on the waters of the Patapsco,
and on which a wharf is erected, known by the name of Craig's wharf.
The plaintiff also proved by Philip Moore that the said Barron and Craig
had purchased the said property from the parties grantors in the said deed
some time before the date of the said deed, and had been in possession
thereof from the time of said purchase, continually, until the commencement
of this action.
The plaintiff further gave in evidence the following order of the port
wardens, dated August 30, 1813:
"Monday, August 30, 1813, 4 o'clock P. M.—The full board met,
agreeably to adjournment, at the bridge on Dulany street.- and passed the
|
