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
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 328   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
   << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

328 HIGH COURT OF CHAWCERY.
of going beyond the liarite of this state; and on the same
day, entered a motion, that he be discharged from said writ,
upon the ground, that lie was a resident of Dorchester county,
and this court had no Jurisdiction; upon which motion, the fol-
lowing order was passed.
This motion being submitted, and evidence being heard, it
is, thereupon, this 13th day of May, 1847, by Baltimore County
Court, ordered, that the said motion be, and the same is, hereby
overrated. The defendant was then delivered to custody of
the warden of the jail of Baltimore city, and immediately, upon
the same day, (13th of May, 1847,) filed his answer to the bill,
with exceptions to its averments, as follows :
1st. That at the time of filing said bill, and service of the
subpcena in this case, and of issuing and executing the writ of
ne exeat, the defendant was a resident of Dorchester county,
and still continues so to'be; he therefore insists, that this court
has no jurisdiction in the premises, and, that the said writ
should be quashed, and the bill dismissed.
2d. He furthers excepts to the sufficiency of the averments
of the bill, in this, that the acts of vicious conduct and cruel
treatment, of which said bill complains, are not specified, Ho
that he can answer thereto, or be provided with proof to nega-
tive such averments..
Insisting upon these exceptions, the respondent, for answer,
admits the marriage and residence in Dorchester county, as
charged in the bill, but denies that he has ever removed to
the city of Baltimore, and avers that he has no intention so to
do, and that he is not about to leave the state of Maryland, or
to depart beyond the jurisdiction of her courts, and that he 'has
no such intention or purpose. He beliefs, and therefore
charges, that the complainant has been guilty of conjugal infi-
delity to him, and does trot admit the statement of the bill, that
she has been a faithful wire. He denies the vicious conduct and
cruel treatment charged in said bill, and that he has ever struck
or cruelly used her. That complainant and respondent came
to Baltimore about the 19th of December last, and there separ-.
rated, because be disliked her, and believed her unworthy.. That

  		clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Reports of Cases in the High Court of Chancery of Maryland 1846-1854
Volume 200, Volume 2, Page 328   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  Cannot perform flastmod(): Win32 Error Code = 2

Maryland State Archives