The Removal of Baltimore City Criminal Court Judge
Henry Stump, 1860. MSA Govpub
, Image No: 812288-0020
   Enlarge and print image (62K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS   NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space


 

The Removal of Baltimore City Criminal Court Judge
Henry Stump, 1860. MSA Govpub
, Image No: 812288-0020
   Enlarge and print image (62K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS   NEXT >>
I saw a Juror drunk once and informed the Sheriff of it, but don't know that it was brought to the knowledge of the Court. To the 5th interrogatory. I have no knowledge of any instructions to the Sheriff to settle liquor cases out of Court. To the 6th interrogatory. I have known parties of a general had character to be received as bail, but they justified and swore that they had property enough to cover the amount of bail. I do not know that the State's Attorney protested against the Court receiving John Hinesly as bail. But Hines-ly has been received as bail for one thousand dollars and at the same time he swore he was worth three times as much. I consider Hinesly worth eight or ten thousand dollars. I was the Deputy Sheriff for the Superior Court and not for the Criminal Court, although I was frequently in the Criminal Court and served process from it. Daniel H. McPhail sivorn. Daniel H. McPhail a witness produced and sworn on the part of Judge Stump. To the 1st interrogatory. I reside in Baltimore city and have resided there for ten years. To the 2d interrogatory. I have filed my written answer which is here filed by the Committee, marked D. H. McPhail. Witness says this was written by him this morning and has never been seen by Judge Stump. I have known Judge Stump for near about twenty years; I have never seen him intoxicated more than twice in my life, never on the bench whilst in the discharge of his duties ; I have been present on several occasions—once as a juror, serving some sixteen days ; this is about five years since ; since that period I have been in Court frequently, once or twice as a witness and at others as a spectator, in none of these instances has the Judge, in my judgment been ever under the influence of intoxicating drinks ; some persons at some of these times have supposed him so, but I was perfectly satisfied of their error from the fact that they did not know him well. The Judge's natural appearance, as well as the negligent manner of his appearing in public, together with his manner of address (natural) would incline some strict professors of temperance to draw an unfavorable conclusion as to the Judge's