clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search		 search for:
clear space
white space
Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1753-1761
Volume 31, Page 276   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space
276 Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1753-1761. Lib. J. R. 5thly It was proved that CoL. Veazey in one Instance de & U. S. dared the Opinion of the Court differently from the Sense of the Majority, as it appeared afterwards from the opinions they delivered seriatim, but we beg Leave to observe to your Excellency that from the usual Manner of collecting the opinions of the Magistrates, this might easily have proceeded from Mistake, and it appeared by no Evidence, that it was done by Design. 6thly It was proved that after a Matter of Law had been debated, and there had been an equal Division of the Magis trates, and it was ordered to be again argued the next Day, Cols Veazey and Bayard after the Departure of the other Magistrates (except one) ordered Judgment to be entred in the Evening but that an Attorney on the other Side being present interposed, and prevented an Entry of the Judgment. 7thly It did not appear to us by proper Proofs, that there is a good Foundation for the Charge agt Cols Veazey and Bayard hearing Causes cx partè out of Doors, and after wards using their Influence in Court for the party whose Cause they had espoused, and we think that they ought not to be affected by the Directions, which Lawyers may have received from their Clients. 8thly and lastly the very general Charge of their having acted inhumanly, partially, and from private Views, we shall p. 238 take no Notice of to your Excellency as the Magistrates can't be supposed to have had a sufficient opportunity of justifying their Conduct in the Instances to which the Evi dence was applied under this Article. Upon the whole it is the Opinion of this Board that Col: Bayard has in many Instances misbehaved in his Office, and that Col: Veazey in the Instances mentioned under the 4th and 6th Articles did not behave with the Discretion and Impartiality a Magistrate ought to observe in the Execution of his Office and that particularly in the Matter mentioned under the 4th Head, his Misbehaviour seems to have pro ceeded from a very partial Regard to Col: Bayard but with due Deference it is submitted to your Excellency. Samuel Chamberlaine, Benjamin Tasker jun: Richd Lee Wm Goldsborough Robt Jenckins Henry. Daniel Dulany, 15th April 1758.

  		clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1753-1761
Volume 31, Page 276   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.

Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!

An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  October 06, 2023
Maryland State Archives