190 court of appeals of maryland

after, cases were presented almost altogether in
oral argument, and the judges, generally speak-
ing, did no reading. They did often read authori-
ties for themselves, presumably, when they took
cases under advisement; and even in the earlier
half of the century they were apparently expected
to take under advisement some of the more serious
cases. Taney complained ° that the case of the
C. & O. Canal v. B. & O. R. R., in January 1832,
was one which should have been carried over for
decision, instead of being decided within two
days after argument, as it was.¹⁰ But the ordinary,
normal presentation of a case was entirely oral,
reviewing with the judges in open court all the
material for decision. It will be recalled that a
brief of facts, one copy only, with a statement of
the questions of law, had been after 1806 required
of counsel in each case, and after the middle of
the century printed records and briefs were given
to the judges for their assistance, but, at first short,
and only outlining the contentions discussed. In
the last three decades of the century both records
and briefs were expanded greatly, especially in
the nineties, coincident with the introduction of
typewriters into general use, and increasing re-
liance on stenographers as labor savers. In 1889,
Chief Judge Alvey¹¹ expressed surprise and dis-
approval at the insertion in a record of testimony
as it had been taken down by a stenographer, in-
stead of in the form usual in bills of exceptions;
but this and other like protests have so far been

9. Semmes, Latrobe, 344.

10. The case was decided in January 1832, but the opinions were not
filed until the June term following.

11. Dumay v. Sanchez, 71 Md. 508, 511 to 513.