Queen v. Neale
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Appeal frojn Charles County Court. This was a petition for freedom; and under the act of 1804, ch. 55, s. 2, the petitioner, (now appellant,) exhibited her affidavit, stating that she believed she could not have a fair and impartial trial in that court, and by her counsel moved the court co direct that the pecord and proceedings should be removed as directed by the above mentioned act; but the court, [Clarke, A. J.] overruled the motion. The petitioner excepted.
Read the full summary
Appeal frojn Charles County Court. This was a petition for freedom; and under the act of 1804, ch. 55, s. 2, the petitioner, (now appellant,) exhibited her affidavit, stating that she believed she could not have a fair and impartial trial in that court, and by her counsel moved the court co direct that the pecord and proceedings should be removed as directed by the above mentioned act; but the court, [Clarke, A. J.] overruled the motion. The petitioner excepted. The case was afterwards tried, and the verdict and judgment being for the defendant, the petitioner appealed to this court.
1Opinion of the Court
Nicholson, J,
delivered the opinion of the court. A petition for freedom is comprehended within the general terms of suits or actions in the second section of the act of 1804, ch. 55, and the county court, in which the suit is instituted, are bound to transmit the proceedings to the judges of any county court within the district, upon the affidavit of either of the parties competent to jnake an affidavit, or upon such other proper and competent evidence as may be offered in support of the suggestion that an impartial trial cannot be had in the county in which the petition for freedom is…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Hall v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Mayor of Baltimore v. LibowitzCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1930
- Peters v. Van LearCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1846
- Hall v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1876