Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
/ / l~ • ™
HZ f)
n
DT THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR EDWARD OOUKTY
NETTIE TAYLOR,
P l a i n t i f f ,
v s .
THE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE,
D e f e n d a n t .
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Mr. C l e r k :
P l e a s e f i l e , e t o .
A t t o r n e y f o r P l a i n t i f f .
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR HOWARD COUNTY
NETTIE TAYLOR,
P l a i n t i f f ,
vs .
THE IvAYOR & CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE,
D e f e n d a n t .
!
No. 7 Foreign Trials, March Term, 1932.
Mr. Clerk:
Please enter t h i s case "Dismissed", the
P l a i n t i f f to pay the cos t s .
Attorneys for P l a i n t i f f .
CITY SOLICITOR'S OFFICE
(1J Oeeer Jatyw* * city linployee
{&) Ugl* Meffett - Keeldee os City ptroperty
{8} Jefea f©lf *
{4) teaatel Fogll - Leber roiMMJi et the plain* • reeidee fit Bengee Poet Off lee
(5) BietriaJi rmmm&me m 441 1 . K#nno©a ;.vem»e - ptHtspiag StsMem m*B At the plant
{*) Dooma Wmm\ - City employ**
(?) Lao J . rbtiM«gft« » ri*a*lcer - reate bou«« frois City
{%} 9» C, OrwmJLl - fflMwifet »t the pleat
(10) JaeOb i. tee » "I* lea* i.pte, Telepheae - lefeyette 4103
VmiUmtm Betters Serriee, £803 Kedieen ivtnut, Telephone * Wsdieott 2424
rit /
, - \ .
Pi l e 17239.
In re
April 2 , 1917,
The p roper t i e s In question embrace three contiguous t r a c t s of
land. Upon the larger of those,which fronts on the Eastern avenue
road and hinds or, the r i v e r , i s located a th ree -s to ry hotel contain
ing about sixteen bedrooms, a bar , dining room and lounging room.
In the grove adjoining the hotel there i s a dancing pavi l ion and a
dining pavi l ion . Next to t h i s l o t i s another l o t improved by a two
and a half s tory frame dwelling house and adjoining t h i s i s a two and
a ha l f s tory frame dwelling house with a s tore f ron t .
The deeds for these p rope r t i e s , abs t r ac t s of which I have in the
f i l e , do not show how much land they contain, but I am informed tha t
a l l three of them combined make about two ac res .
Uet t ie Taylor ' s i n t e r e s t in the proper t ies i s leasehold, subject
to the payment of three redeemable ground ren t s aggregating f650.00,
or a combined c a p i t a l i z a t i o n at six per cent of $10833.00.
l l e t t ie Taylor bought the p roper t i es in 1911 and although the deeds
do not disclose nor the records show, Mr. Hopkins, her at torney informs
me tha t she paid $12000.00 for them.
Prom the abs t r ac t s of her deeds, which I have in the f i l e s , i t
appears tha t when she bought the p roper t i es she mortgaged them to a
bui ld ing assoc ia t ion for $3500.00 and on top of t h i s gave what appears
to be a purchase money mortgage to the vendor for $2000.00, making the
t o t a l amount of t h i s incumbrance $5500.00. I t i s impossible, of
course , to determine from these mortgages what the purchase pr ice was
or what the bui lding associa t ion considered the leasehold values of
the p roper t i e s to be , but a l i b e r a l estimate would ce r t a in ly make
i t not more than ten or eleven thousand d o l l a r s .
Sinoe acquiring the property she has expended on i t in the way
of r e p a i r s , improvements &o. $6000.00, making her t o t a l invested t he re
i n , according to her claim, $18000.00. She w i l l s e l l i t outr ight to
the City for §15000.00, or w i l l execute t o the City a re lease in per
p e t u i t y of a l l past and future damages r e su l t i ng from the plant for
$10,000.00.
The property i s used by Miss Taylor as a road-house, saloon and
a r e s o r t , with boating and other f a c i l i t i e s a t tached.
0
GEORGE W. WARNECKE, ET AL
VS:
THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE CITY, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION.
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT
• FOR
HOWARD COUNTY
BEFORE JUDGE FORSYTHE
AND A JURY.
O P I N I O N
By JUDGE FORSYTHE: In order to determine the question
presented by the defendants prayer, it is necessary to determine the
character of the nuisance complained of, whether nor not it is a
permanent nuisance or whether it is a continuing, recurring nuisance.
Now, it seems to me the authorities all
over the country are agreed both as to whether or not the plea of
limitation applies to permanent nuisances, and have likewise agreed, I
think without any dissenting voice, as to what are permanent and what
are continuing nuisances.
Take the cases cited in Cyc, the cases in
Ruling Cases and the notes of cases reported in L. R. A., covering a great
many States of the Union.
It does not appear that this exact question
has been raised in a case exactly like this in this State, but there are
cases in this State in which the principles adopted by the cases in other
States have been sanctioned or followed. So there is no reason to believe
that the principles or rules followed will be any different in this State
from any other State.
Now, the most exhaustive opinion I have been able to find
on the question is the opinion written by Justic Sturgis in a Missouri case.
- 1 -
That is a most exhaustive opinion. It collects all the
authorities, including the authorities cited in Cyc, in Ruling Cases and
in L. R. A.
Almost every case is discussed and the rules of interpretation
have been followed and laid down very clearly.
As I said, in determining the damage resulting from a
permanent nuisance, the right to recover accrues at the erection of the
nuisance, if it is a permanent nuisance, or when the damage first resulted
and the statute of limitation is a bar if it is a permanent nuisance.
To determine whether it is permanent or continuing the Courts
have laid down the rule and test, and they have defined a continuing and
recurring nuisance as one which is abatable, a nuisance which could be
abated the day after a verdict was rendered.
Now the test which all authorities seem to establish is that
the injuries themselves would terminate with the cause, but if the cause
is permanent the injury in permanent.
The test is whether or not the thing which creates the nuisance is permanent
or can be removed.
The best statement of that is in this language:
"There can be no doubt that where the
cause or source of the injury is permanent and
nonabatable and the resulting damages go to the
total or partial destruction of the land or
continuously prevent its beneficial use in whole
or in part, as by washing away of the soil, covering
the same with rock, constant flooding of land or
mines, continuous discharge of sewage, noxious gases,
etc. then the cause of action accrues once for all
and must be sued for in one action within the statutory
period of limitation. The authorities are practically
- 2 -
unanimous to this extent. And it
follows as a corollary to this that
the cause of action accrues in such
cases against the party erecting the
permanent nuisance and in favor of
the owner of the land at the time of
such ereotion or the first resulting
injury."
This case is so full that it will almost bear reading in full. But
from the very best consideration I have been able to give to it, the
Court is compelled to hold that this structure is a permanent structure
and the nuisance creates a permanent damage. Therefore, the only
action the Court can take is to grant the defendant's prayer and direct
a verdict for the defendant.
April 10th, 1924,
- 3 -
/• i
' / >
y i l e 17239, CRAUDA for Mr. ifield
Tn re Property of Ket t le Taylor
a t Back Rifer .
_____ April 2 , 1917.
The p rope r t i e s in que8tion embrace three contiguous t r a o t s of
land. Upon the larger of those,,vhloh fronts on the Eastern avenue
road and binds on the r i v e r , i s located a th ree - s to ry hotel contain
ing about sixteen bedrooms, a bar , dining room and lounging room.
In the grove adjoining the hotel there i s a dancing pavi l ion and a
dining pavi l ion . Heact to t h i s l o t i s another l o t improved by a two
and a half s tory i f ra-ne\ dwelling house and adjoining t h i s i s a two and
tory frame dwelling house with a s tore f ron t .
The deeds for these p rope r t i e s , abs t r ac t s of which I have in the
f i l e , do not show how much land they contain, but I am informed tha t
a l l three of them combined make about two ac res .
ITettie Taylor*s i n t e r e s t in the proper t ies ' is leasehold, subject
to the payment of three redeemable ground ren ts aggregating 650.00,
or a combined c a p i t a l i z a t i o n a t six per cent of $10833.00.
o t t i e Taylor bought the p roper t i es in 1911 and although the deeds
do not disclose nor the records show, Mr. Hopkins, her a t torney informs
me tha t she paid $12000.00-for them.
Prom the abs t rao t s of her deeds, which I have in the f i l e s , i t
appears tha t when she bought the p roper t i es nhe mortgaged them to a
bui ld ing associa t ion for $3600.00 and on top of t h i s gave what appears
to be a purchase money mortgage to the vendor for $2000.00, making the
t o t a l amount of t h i s incumbrance $5500.00. I t i s impossible, of
course , to determine from these mortgages what the purchase prioe was
or what the bui lding associa t ion considered the leasehold values of
j .
the p roper t i e s to b e , but a l i b e r a l estimate would ce r t a in ly make
i t not -nore than ten or eleven thousand d o l l a r s .
Sinoe acquiring the property she has expended on i t in the wayi
of r e p a i r s , improvements &o. $6000.00, making her t o t a l invested the re
i n , aooording to her claim, ,$18000.00. She wi l l s e l l i t outr ight to
the Oity for $15000*00, or w i l l execute t o the City a re lease in per
p e t u i t y of a l l past and future damages r e su l t i ng from the plant for
110,000.00.
The property i s used by :.liss Taylor as a road-house, saloon and
a r e s o r t , with boating and other f a c i l i t i e s a t tached.
I
QdUU^ h: tk*~ <- C j O^X^Atmmm », —*'w^, f*'' ' ^
I d?
©
rv
St y
AIHJJL. ^(rv-*Uc. <rY-t^-. J S - A ^ C ^ fU*-t*~ ^Hr
j^ZjkA \tfjJl /UML <f Si ' /*°S / ^ o l
/ jL^yu ft 6*- L^v- /Ct^-v^Lc
<A_
(hyuv*. <$W° V2>%r ' - / - ^ . *+>~^*~ ^ct_ rUTU- y * ^ <UrT<Ob~M-J~
h^t^ +1 w* cf &'/ % ° s 3 4: ''f
O^AJU^T^ ^ trv^p^^Ji Xu*&*
i
l*u*~
cf 6<? °
\
9
1
J 1
T6f^ „ ,J £ & ^ ft. 1 y\^ /-^tL^a /<L*AAn0-e^ & <VL„Jh ' W ^ u /
£^JU*£A^>^ Yh
:
.
.
A - 4 * ^ 3V / f / / ,
(D
(L^^HJ^JT (LHL^JLJ- - * 9-w-d.
Ji^h.
A ^
0% f e &
^ f W _ ^ - ^ 2 * _
(J AJ^ W~f~ & - Pu^^ ml.
6^c ijruUfc ^ -s^tAc \.<J 36° 8qr3 V'
&
u ~Lu> u~iC
fy(PA)L/l3~3U 2,J /f£i
1 1 •'• <
^ i l j W / 3
J
sTvtfyi^. S)M-^JL, \^f^i&hj~ ^LnJrr^
19636
\ yV-p^[^_ JG^^ i/H^i^kc J^J-nJ^-J^
JC'un^LiL. 4 3 0 y£ JU~# St//o~o ' k
To l^ +• /4 ^J % ^T^^—j
^ /7V3 f^yU-Cc ^u^^vl 1 ^ ^ (£) ol MLo T u V - &-cA\
© UMXJL (j)
^OJtfU&)fMJ&UjJ
f(P<6 a y~- j-jy. ?>-%&&, lilies - «fUc «- JuhX-k. fi~ Xrrt-ttj (HI)
&-^-v^^^^-^^H l^M^-v^u-yl — / I (J~V
tr 6) Lri^ O^o •^^Jc_.
-
•
•
-
1 /
ypA3S£-/(r.;
1
/
(P ^&>*~*~3 L^Kur-1
%(P4 ^°<t- %*f-
d*Jx
( L ^ K W > CUIA-V^-A : J/fv-o
£) — - ^ ^ ^ J ? ^ -
K ' ^ « i
A - %^lllj (1/0-
^M-^. &Cr- (J? • V c ^ U ^~f^ % (Q
l ^vv JL*j~tc*X -wA)
J tWs^
r 1 i, ^ o x^^^c T- ^>&. is Q
.
• t
A#x~^ beu^ its 11 /1 fi fj IA.LM,
{^^JJ
3U~/<eX.
3 7 ^ - J ^ V
^ 0 - /3t
A) y>U<r
-4 /zuw^^ {r^X^J
uCft^-tT"*-' ( #-<3<L t
| u >&C<r- ^
Jb CM
I /
(D
ttjiin
^^vw, zoic J ir L o X A^^ujJ 7 0 ' ^
v L 4 ^ i r j ^ ^ ^ c c A fccw^>^ k-
X^^h^\ t^tfoiL %n^^'% IS"}-' &*^~ Urrr t r^juJh ^ \ £ I.£>f ' 1
uots th» Jury no ev lias *9an
off«r«4 in mtti %° * rmimt
for V vlnt i i . , ( hmii
V^rdlot taunt b« for m ^ g
0 C M ^
1 K .
iags and mridenc , t ly trnffioi
lanoe to «nti i f f s to reaov. ,
of the Jmry smst th<
at
• 3
tit* Jmry, tha t the i»**s*ra l
AamageB I at*), I 1 s s l i s r t fraa the evlrtOBO®
I t i t l e « to any damage a t a i l , Is
t f c M I , :.y, "between the f a i r oarket value of the ; ' la int l . f . i , H i tlr,ie tha t u
.-latsJmtnti ne< jstiaony as sat-, if from the paJN •
/ Sswsg* Manoaa!h Plant wero f i r s t oheerred on tha p l a i n t i f f s '
, <?mry sc , what the f a i r naffest Vfclaa
of ' r ty wae,(j i l a t ^ l j j
J
* < W M
-tw-lnn,** cU&sdoLj yt^-l ^9^- %*^~t
H
m Comrt instrmete the Jury, t ha t In determining
the ra l*« of iffs* , >ither before or
/iwaediatftly) eniag of the l«Jmrr of
la • -»e, th**y are >•«»•» te
as a whole, and t h in th i« oaee are not e n t i t l e d
haTe the Jury assess the vala* ctnds anil inproTettente
separa te ly , and ar Lnet Item*?, hat the Jury I t in
t h i s oaae, to ti e ra in I of the s ingle question, to wi t :
what was th market value of th^ lands and iraproveraer
be , combine ',
said la^ i -: a been u»ed, I tm
bo ussed, ^
.Tmry tha t even i f they should
find a vordiot Cor the P l a i n t i f f s , the daiaagee whleh the Jary
May aftsess are r e s t r i c t e d nnfi&r % h t h i s case to
the aotna l damage, i f any, suffered fey the plaittHtffc in t?
depreciat ion of th<?? f a i r -aarket Y&lae of
laanner m I the defendant 's • prayer ; &r
P l a in t i f f s cannot recover under the pleadings in th i s o»
any >:!*uaaga£ rsonal i»oonreni«nca, annoyance, dieoomfort
or injury to hea l th , i ft whit try may believe ha»
Been saffflred or &n stained oy t in Ut t i f fa ,
fj
L .Tury, I' r mark
ralmo of kfi 1B rooant, tha e whi
a pnrehaser wi l l ing , bmt not aoapelled to limy, woul , an..!
what an ow*. , , out not oorapalleA to i
"Si " ,
£!c3. fe
• n ' !
Itorya HM of
proof | i apon %h C» in th lo oaso, to M ;$h by a
propondomiioo of the t jay, tha t tho rty, of tha 1
t i f f s hao boon in^ar^d by t; m of
tho too- • | la t
ease loavoo th ->o of in a otate of oqntpoiBO
- . . • ' , as to M t or not th< itfm* rty
hM INMI :: Lajwoo, tew ta i f i lt«1i i f tko tary Murt N far
%
, I <nee has
seen i ;« case, U f s l l f m nt to show that
the r la int i f fp hare IMNM unable? to and atsnoaw o I ir
, hereof, nine a the b tie
/ twa *alJ l
ana the J*ry l i fa r ther Instruct-- no l ega l ly
noe In t h i e cape t o r, 1 -.coporty, or any po , ,« been .5 ' '»r#&
with or prevented, as th t al i f the (or U ^ emanating
from said 9*wag* diepoaa.-' at* ££ <3*>
th« ft .
' »rty
. . waa prior %
•Mutating f • ' h w /.-lant, nti
f i r s t tatax". t a t i f , lot
tat «lmry
6E
X
1° Jury, thft? aai iava
fro.
»4 in tho toartiaony, tha t oio .-alia
!• the •'fia<! to I •£ • • « • .• « men
'•-.•,.- •'• ».>;&,; ..lanr, tMiTfl felonn 9T»i , th« pro >rtf si
•4f« or jarbago ms«<! by far -
ere an3 truekera in UM Vicini ty of tha • y t
>4 pas*, th© p la in t i f f s* pror
Jury la inatrmc »nt for • iag«
Latad or oaastotf toy g or rmslla aeuuiatin/
?lfc - i a* t i»a | im1 I I pla.< 'a amat
. i t s aot inn, wha ha
Aaraagr , y t B i s k ,
RIDDEL VS MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST PRATER.
a*A* The Court instructs the jury that if they shall find from
s/ the evidence that the plaintiffs.are 'possessefyiof the prerises A ^
referred to and located in Baltimore County, and reside thereon
with their family, and shall further find that the defendant
located, erected and constructed the sewerage plant mentioned in
evidence upon property near unto the plaintiffs*said property,
and shall further find that the defendant hy the location and
operation of said sewerage plant causes large quantities of foul
and offensix© odors, gas and insects to he emitted an; discharged
from said sewerage plant which settle upon and over the plaintiffs*
property, and permeate the house and buildings thereupon located,
and shall further find that said odors, gases and insects are
emitted said discharged from the defendant's said sewerage plant
over and upon the plaintiffs* property, and permeate the plain
tiffs' dwelling and buildings thereon, in such quantities, as to
cause great "bodily discomfort to the pi; ' and their family,
ami that they produce at times viole i, and at other times
prevent the taking of nccessnry food, and corbel the occupants of
said dwelling to keep the doors and windows closed at times, and
that hy reason thereof the value of the plaintiffs* -roporty is
depreciated, if the jury so find, then the plaint' ' « en
titled to recover in this action.
.'
i
RIDDEL VS MAYOR MB CITY COUNCIL,
PLAIWTIF CON!) F M E T U I I . - - . ~ — — - , — I * . . . — • ,11—!,.-».—,.. •' • . . • • •• - . •WHlfMll
The Court instructs the ;Jury that if they find in
favor of the plaintiffs, then in assessing the aiaount of dam
ages to ho allowed the plaintiffs, they nay talae into consid
eration the condition and fair marlast value of the property in
question, before the location, construction and 0|>cration of
the sewerage plant mentioned in the evidence, and the condition
and fair narfcet value of the property in question since the
location, construction and operation of said sewerage plant, so
far as said marlast value of said property has "been affected
hy the location, construction and operation of s id sewerage
plant, if they shall so find, and alloi/ the plaintiffs suclJ stin
as they may "believe will fully and fairly conpensate the plain
tiffs for the loss, damage and ir 'Jiey have suffered hy the
depreciation in value of their said property naturally and
neeesGirily resulting froa the location, conatruction and oper
ation of said plant, except such danages if any, a plain
tiffs could have prevented hy reasonable expense and trouble
to avoid the same.
•
LteJ-&^-£*~£ /$&£j_, ^ ^ 6 ^ ^ ^ V V
^uu. *rr-Mfl~ ££i\ ftbtf.
Jtw*i*-/q!l fi^c * & w ^ t /•
^iZtJtVL^ &en~£+U*-
tn- '3-
fZJ ^ Z&^^W-z/X £*-^e^i^-f A-J^^6 L^i /^i^^^y / s L / ^ ^ ^
tZZcCjrtJLv <?tX^ft7**-^-<-^
(3JA£~fi W ^ / 2% £&lp J^*^- CX^LMLJ^J-^ z ^
at cr&rr^
* *—
,&p-s
p 9
H.
C O P Y
Ba l t i m ore , May 6 , 1932.
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
To HARRY E. GILBERT, At torney a t Law, 2 E. Lexington S t .
Dr.
For services in the examination of Taylor property
at Back River and preparation for trial in
Circuit Court at Ellicott City in the case of
Taylor vs• City $35.00
CAJ2 ^ ^ ,/-"
April 30th, 1932.
MEMORANDUM IN CASS OF NETTIE TAYLOR TS. THE CITY
After t a l k i n g w i t h Mr. M a r s h a l l , Ci ty S o l i c i t o r , I
today c a l l e d Mr. Lawrence and t o l d him t h a t we would add
| 50 ,00 to our p r o p o s i t i o n , making $183.90. He sa id t h i s
amount was too s m a l l . He f i r s t asked me t o make i t $250.00
and then $200.00. I t o l d him the substance of what I sa id
i n t h e o ther memorandum and t h a t t h i s $183.90 was our l i m i t .
He sa id in t h a t event t h e n , he would d ismiss the s u i t and
would not t ake anything in s e t t l emen t as t h e amount was too
s m a l l .
ALLEN A. DAVIS Assistant City Solicitor.
April 12th, 1932.
MEMORANDUM IN CASE OF NETTIE TAYLOR VS. THE CITY
On Monday, April 11th, 1932, I went to Ellicott City for the trial of this case. Due to another case then on trial, the Court excused us until the next day, Tuesday, April 12th, 1932. I returned to Court on said day ready for the trial. Messrs. Lawrence and Donovan, representing the plaintiff, asked me if the City would not pay a larger sum than the $100.00 I had offered them, for a full release from Nettie Taylor for all past and future damages. I made this offer after consultation with the City Solicitor, on the theory that it would oost $100.00 to try this case, including the transportation of our witnesses to Ellicott City. I had taken no witnesses to Ellicott City except Kessrs. Ruark and Keefer, although I had spoken to the others to be ready to proceed there.
I refused to raise the offer and refused to agree that this case be passed for settlement or that it be marked "Agreed and Settled." I insisted that the case be dismissed by the plaintiff, the plaintiff to pay the costs which amounted to $33.90. I did agree that upon the dismissal of the case and giving the City a general release as hereinabove referred to, I would recommend the payment of $133.90. Counsel for the plaintiff referred to the physical condition of their client and stated they desired to make a personal appeal to the City Solicitor to raise the amount of this offer. I said I had no objection to their seeing Mr. Marshall - if he wanted to give them more, all right, but that the City was unwilling to make any settlement that would be profitable to the plaintiff. The lawyers claimed they could not get any substantial fee out of the small amount of this settlement. I said that any substantial payment to the plaintiff would be an incentive to other people in the vicinity of the Disposal Plant to bring suits with the hope of getting a similar settlement - the lawyers getting a small fee and the plaintiffs getting a few dollars; that the City was prepared to win this case and it might as well win it as a determent to other people bringing suits. I figured that out of the money which the City paid, the plaintiff will have to pay the costs of $33.90 and will have to give her two counsel something. I understood she had paid the transportation of a number of witnesses to Ellicott City from Baltimore for two days, hiring a bus. No witness fees are included in the $33.90. She had previously paid $10.00 for removing the record from Baltimore County.
There was present at Ellicott City both Monday and Tuesday young Merriken, real estate agent of Baltimore City, so I figured anybody who was familiar with the facts would realize that Nettie Taylor got very little out of the settlemento
ALLEN A. DAVIS Assistant City Solicitor .
I asked Mr. Clark for a bill for his services to date and he said they were $50.00.
W I L L I A M H . L A W H E X C K A T T O R N E Y A T L A W
2<IT F I R S T N A T I O N A L D A N K D U I L D I N G
B A L T I M O H R , M D .
A p r i l 28, 1932.
Hon. Robert E. Lee Marshall, City Solicitor, Court House, Baltimore, Md.
Dear Mr. Marshall,— Taylor vs. Mayor & City Counoil of Balto.City.
Will you please let me hear from you regarding
above Sllioott City case, and oblige
Very truly yours,
CITY SOLICITOR'S OFFICE
April 22nd, 1932,
Jauss Clark, Esq*. Ellioott City, £&*
Rot Battle Taylor vs , Mayor and City Council of Baltfesoi
Dear llr. Ciarki-
I enclose ohook no, lBmT, AwNpl April Slat , 1932,
for £50*00, in payment of your eorvieai^in the sbowNsntitled case*
I have not
plaintiff an •xeouted Ordar_pX
do •© at an early da
by Judge Po
from the Attorney for the
of t h i s action, but hop* to
5?ilKypu klnjQy **oA s® * «°py o f **» entry
sot as to how the ease stands*
Vory truly yours,
Assistant City Solicitor*
LAW O F F I C E S
J A M E S C L A R K E L L I C O T T CITY, M D .
JAM ES CLARK
J . C A R R O L L B A R T H O L O W
T s v r,
April 23rd, 1932.
A. A. Davis, Esq., Assistant City Solicitor,
Court House, Baltimore, Maryland.
Dear Mr. Davis:
I thank you for your favor of the 22nd i n s t . , enclosing check for $50.00 for my fee in the case of Uett ie Taylor against the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, removed to the Circuit Court for Howard County.
I enclose herewith a copy of the docket en t r i e s taken from the Clerk 's docket. I have not seen Judge Porsythe 's personal docket but I have an idea tha t he did not make any entry except that the case was passed for se t t lement .
Yours very t r u l y .
JC:AC Enclosure.
COPY OP DOCKET ENTRIES
NETTIE TAYLOR
T S .
MAYOR AMD CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE CITY, a municipal c o r p o r a t i o n .
18th June , 1930 - T ransc r ip t of r ecord from the C i r cu i t Court for Bal t imore County f i l e d .
24th A p r i l , 1931- Order to en t e r appearance of J . Clark f o r Defendant.
E l s t Mar. 193E - Motion to t r a n s f e r case t o T r i a l Docket. Motion g ran ted and case t r a n s f e r r e d to Fore ign T r i a l Docket, March Term, 1932.
r
W I L L I A M H . L A W R E N C E A T T O R N E Y A T L A W
KOT F I R S T N A T I O N A L H A N K D U I L U I N G
B A L T I M O I I G , M D .
-
I ?f-
A p r i l 20, 1932.
Hon. Robert 2. Lee Marshall, City Solicitor, Court House, Baltimore, Md.
Dear Lee,—
Please let me hear from you regarding the case
at Sllicott City in the matter of Nettie Taylor vs. Mayor & City
Council, and oblige
Very truly yours,
V i
I
C O P Y
Law Offices
Ell ioott Uity, Md.
April 12th, 1932.
Mayor & City Council of Baltimore City,
To James Clark, Dr.
To professional services in re Taylor v s . Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City . . . . . . . $50.00
Received payment.
City's check #12007 - Voucher #12368, for $50.00, dated April 21, 1932, sent to Mr. Clark on Friday, April 22, 1932, in payment of this "bill.
G /••-'£.' fakf 0
p-t**+ * L*\
R.E»Lee Marshal l mCWXKteeCKHXQOE
CITY SOLICITOR
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
217 COURT H O U S E
BALTIMORE. MARYLAND
^
Apri l 7 t h , 1932.
Alfonso von Wyszecki, Esq., Assistant City Solioitor.
Dear Sir:-
Nettie Taylor is suing the City for damages to certain land and the improvements thereon located near Eastern Avenue in the vicinity of Back River, Baltimore County. In the Bill of Particulars she says the property referred to consists of three parcels:
(a) All the property described in a deed from James Barclay to her, dated June 2nd, 1911, and recorded among the Land Records of Baltimore County in Liber W.P.C. No. 378, Folio 438;
(b) All the pronerty described in a deed from George R. Willis, et al to her, dated Way 27th, 1913, and recorded among the Land Records of Baltimore County in Liber W.P.C. No. 413, Folio 368;
(o) All the property described in a deed from the Crown Building & Loan Association, Inc. to her, recorded in Liber W.P.C. No. 388, Folio 165.
On April 9th, 1914, she commenced an action against the City for damages to the same pieces of property. That case was taken from the jury on first trial, but the Court of Appeals in Taylor vs. Baltimore, 130 Md. 133, decided January 11th, 1917, reversed the action of the Lower Court in directing a verdict for the City. The case was thereafter tried in the Circuit Court for Howard County and a verdict was obtained for |4000.00. My understanding is that the City never appealed from this verdict, but finally paid it some time in 1918. In the trial of that case, this office was represented by Mr. Colgan, and he was assisted by Mr. James Clark of Ellicott City.
Alfonso von Wyszecki, Esq. #2.
The case now pending will be called for trial next Monday, April 11th, at Ellicott City.
This morning, in a telephone conversation, Mr. Clark advised me that he is, or was, under the impression that when Mr. Colgan paid the $4000.00 in settlement of the former case, he took a general release against all claims for future damages. I have been unable to find such a release. Mr» Clark suggested that it might be recorded in the Land Records of Baltimore County0
Will you kindly have the records searched to ascertain whether there is such a release on file, and let me have a report at once <>
Very truly yours,
Assistant City SoTicT£or~r
AAD-Q,
%T*JL jpv»X\^ |U& QuJf-
April 7th, 1932.
MEMORANDUM IN CASE OF NETTIE TAYLOR VS. CITY
Since writing the letter of March 31st, 1932,
to James Clark, Esq., he telephoned me that this case would be
in the assignment for Monday, April 11th. I talked to him to
day over the telephone and he said he had heard nothing further
in the matter; that there will be one or two oases in the assign
ment,but he thinks this case will be called on Monday for trial.
He said it would be unnecessary for me to bring my witnesses on
Monday as the plaintiff's case will probably take up most of the
time.
ALLEN A. DAYIS Assistant City Solicitor.
CITY SOLICITOR'S OFFICE
March 31st, 1932.
Jamas Clark, Esq*, El l ioott City, Md.
Nettle Taylor vs . Mayor aqdj City Council of Baltimore.
Dear Mr. Clarki-
I wrote you on thesieth i n s t a n t in reply to your l e t t er of the 3rd, in regar^*<f\fte above action.
I t wi l l talhr*s/about a week to prepare for t r ia l in th i s ease, but I do nox\Amt to make the preparation unle s s the ease i s to be^S3Je7tv T >^snow engaged in preparing a brief for the Court /rtlf^Anne^Xin ca*#s f?os. 9 and 10 - Aoril Term of Court.
Updn^Te^lpt of th i s l e t t e r , wi l l you kindly advise ae^n"fo the probable date we wi l l be forced to take up this TeyJLer os.se.
7ery truly yours.
Assistant City Sol io i tor .
AAD-vi.
CITY SOLICITOR'S OFFICE
liar ah 15th, 1932.
Janes Clark, Esq., Ell ioott City* ad.
Ret Hettie Taylor v s . Council of Bait
Dear ?*•• Clarkt-
I thank you for your favor of tfilOgrd instant, advising that tho above antitlod orfpe^lll not bo reached for t r i a l before tho week begiming/Ajiril j$h» end poaalbly not until the week beginning April 11th.
I have^uet^teenNQv telephone oonounloation with Mr. William H. U w r e n o ^ r T ^ h w e l foX the p la int i f f . He advisee me he i s agreeable to/having the oaae taken up after the f i r s t of April and that he wi l l write lot J Donovan to th i s e f f ec t .
y^TH As you'leaewj the Court of Appeals nests on April 4th. TheMndloations are now that Z shall be engaged in that Court one; joe two days during the f i r s t week of the term. X suggest , therefore, i f / i * o«n be done, that you and Mr. Donovan set the ?aylo\f\oa«e foyyeome day in the week beginning April 11th. 1 would thla^k^ou^*o advise i»s as early as eonvwalent the date f ixed.
Very truly yours.
Assistant City Sol ic i tor .
AAD-Q.
J A M E S CLARK
LAW O F F I C E S
J A M E S CLARK E L L I C O T T CITY, MO.
J . C A R R O L L B A R T H O L O W
March 3rd, 1932.
A l l en A. Davis, Esq . ,
217 Court House,
Bait imor e, Mary land.
Dear Mr. Davis: He: N e t t i e Taylor v s . Mayor and City Council of Ba l t imore .
I have your favor of t he 2nd i n s t .
I hard ly t h i n k t h i s case w i l l be reached before
t h e week beginning Apr i l 4 t h , and p o s s i b l y not u n t i l the
week beginning A p r i l 11th.
Yours very t r u l y ,
JC:AC
CITY SOLICITOR'S OFFICE
!<areh 2nd, 1982.
Janas Clark, B*j., Eilioott City, lid.
Rat Sattia Taylor ra. Ma; Council of Bait
and City
Daar Mr. Clark*-
X hava your f i r* tha abova antitiad oaaa. advaataga la postponing tha
I nota you 21at, and X an woadarJ raaohad for trial, Maroh 28th, and it id oosalb) Eaatar waoation, birfiiming on] 25th, and extaad H\\hrough
z: of ?abruaryOffith l aa t , in of what younsay, X aaa no
June Tarn of Court,
"tha Maroh Tana bagiaa Maroh Baylor oaaa would probably ba
Ijhat Good Friday falla on aieht want to taka a l i t t l a
•sd*y or "riday, the 24th or tha a'ddla of tha following wwak*
that
throw Dould your Court ba in aaaaioa long anough to
trial of^tha Taylor oaaa about tha firat of April?
Vary truly youra.
Aaalatant City Solicitor.
AAP-U.
J A M E S CLARK
J . C A R R O L L B A R T H O L O W
LAW O F F I C E S
J A M E S CLARK ELL ICOTT CITY, M D .
February 29th , 1932,
Al len A. Davis , Esq . , A s s i s t a n t City S o l i c i t o r ,
217 Court House, Ba l t imore , Maryland
uear Mr. Davis: Re: N e t t i e Taylor v s . Mayor and Gity Council of Bal t imore
You w i l l r e c a l l t ha t t he above e n t i t l e d case was removed t o t h e C i r c u i t Court for Howard County, and t h a t I was asked, dur ing Mr. Kraus ' term of o f f i c e , to look a f t e r the i n t e r e s t of the Defendant h e r e .
This case went on the S te t Docket from t h e June Term, 1931, and can only be brought forward to the T r i a l Docket on a n o t i c e served t h i r t y days , or I t h i n k , s t r i c t l y speaking , t he r u l e says one month, before the term at which i t i s sought t o br ing i t forward. I enc lose herewith a copy of the T h i r t e e n t h Rule of our Court which governs the s i t u a t i o n .
I enclose herewi th a n o t i c e served on me by Mr. Donovan, of Counsel for the P l a i n t i f f , on Saturday. Now, the March Term of our Court beg ins on March 21s t , so t h i s n o t i c e i s , as a ma t t e r of f a c t , too l a t e . However, i f they d o n ' t bring t h e case forward to t h e March Term, they can br ing i t forward to the June Term, so I doubt very much i f we would g a i n anything by r e s i s t i n g t h e b r ing ing forward of the case t o t h e March Term. I , however, w i l l be your adv ice and would a p p r e c i a t e i t very much i f i n s t r u c t me what you want me t o do .
Yours very t r u l y ,
V
guided by you would
JC:AC Enc losu res .
J O S E P H L_. D O N O V A N Attnrtteg at ICaui
E L L I C O T T C I T Y , M D .
P H O N E 2 2 6
February 27, 1932,
James Clark, 3sq. ,
S l l i c o t t City, lift.
Dear Dir:
This i s to give you formal notice that
I shal l at t h e e a l l of the docket of the March Term
ask the Court to d i rec t the Clerk to br ing for th to
the Tr ia l Docket, t he case of Net t ie Taylor vs . Mayor
and City Council for t r i a l at the March merm.
Very t ru ly yours,
JLD:K ^jf^fvh 4 bi^yn^y _
W I L L I A M H. L A W R E N C E A T T O R N E Y A T L A W
2 0 T F I R S T N A T I O N A L B A N K B U I L D I N G
B A L T I M O R E , M D .
fJL sr(*
"on. :,. / a l te r : r aus , April 187*1931. City J o l i c i t o r , dourt House.
My dear ,, 'alter,—
The ease of Taylor vs. Mayor and City Council
is set for A.pri.1 28th. . indly advise me if you will be ready.
ry truly yours ,
A.WALTER KRAUS CITY SOLICITOR
DEPARTMENT OF LAW
217 COURT HOUSE
BALTIM ORE , MARYLAND
File No. 54261. June 20th, 1930.
W. Edward Sultan, Esq., Assistant City Solicitor.
Nettie Taylor vs. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore.
Dear Sir:
The Clerk of the Circuit Court for Baltimore
County informs us that Mr. Lawrence, Attorney for the Plain
tiff, paid the $10.00 Court costs in this case on removal.
We are, therefore, returning check No. 20851, dated June 17,
1930, payable to Louis McL. Merryman, Clerk of the Circuit
Court for Baltimore County, to you, so that it may be returned
to the City Comptroller.
The question as to who is responsible for these
costs will now await the final decision in the case.
Yours truly,
AAD/S.
ALLEN A. DAVIS,
Assistant City Solicitor.
End.
106 5-16-J0 R..L. Co. 20 000
CITY SOLICITOR'S OFFICE
June 23rd, 1930*
Mr. W» S. Banna, Deputy City Comptroller, City Hall, Baltimore, Maryland.
Dear Mr. Bannat-
I am enclosing you herewith check No. 20851, Toucher No. 21196, dated June 17th» 1930, drawn on the Baltimore Commercial Bank, Baltimorem Maryland, in the amount of ?10.00 and made payable to Louie MeL. tlerrymaa Clerk of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Towson, Marytand«^V \ \ \
fS*"*^ \ \ M ^ • a°*'rJB!an advises that the costs of this record have hOen previously paid by Mr. W. H. Luwrenoe, attorney for the plaintiff. And since theee costs have been advanced by Mr. Lawrenoe and the question as to wfeo is ultimately responsible for them will await the final disposition of the oase, we are returning this oheok to you with the request that you cancel same.
Very truly yours.
W, EDWARD SULTAN, Assistant City Solieitor,
1"ES-HC. Encl.
CITY SOLICITOR'S OFFICE
File No. 54261. June 20th, 1930.
< \ W. Edward Saltan, Esq., Nettie Taylor vs. Mayor Assistant City Solicitor. and City Council of
Baltimore.
Dear Sirt
Baltimore,
V irk at the Circuit Court for Baltimore
County inferno us that Ur» Lawfrenee, Attorney for the Plain
tiff, pai4 the $10.00 Ceurt costs in this case on removal.
It/aye, therefore,, returning cheek No. 20851, dated June 17,
1910, payable to Louis MeL. Merryman, Clerk of the Circuit
Court for Baltimore County, to you, so that it may be returned
to the City Comptroller.
The question as to who is responsible for these
costs will now await the final decision in the ease.
Yours truly,
ALLEN A. DAVIS,
AAD/S. Assistant City Solicitor.
Enel.
CITY SOLICITOR'S OFFICE
Juno 19th, 1930,
Clerk Mr. Louie ItoU Merryijan, Clerk Cirouit Court for Baltimore 0va^$0mmmmmJ Tswson, Mnrf,nT>t*» __ \
Deer Slrt
for your le t ter of the < « >
18th • (TW> the eoste In this ease, I will return the City*e cheek to
ease to determine who is to pay oosts.
Tours truly,
AAD/S* Assistant City Solicitor,
CLERK'S OFFICE
CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE COUNTY
TOWSON. MD.
LOUIS McL. MERRYMAN J. HOWARD CASSIDY CLERK CHIEF CLERK
June 18th 1930,
Mr Allen A. Davis, Court House, Baltimore, Md.
Dear Mr Davis:
The enclosed Check from the Mayor & City Council of Baltimore for the sum of $10.00 *° cover costs of Record in the case of Nettie Taylor vs. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore removed from here to Circuit Court for Howard County, received this A.M.
I am returning the check because the costs of this Record has previously been paid through Mr William H. Lawrence, Attorney for the plaintiff.
I am in a quandry as to what disposition to make of this check as the usual custom is for the party applying for removal to pay the costs of the record-Awaiting your reply I am
Very truly yours
Louis McL. Merrynwm,
Clerk.
106 5-16-30 R.-L. Co. 20,000
CITY SOLICITOR'S OFFICE *.
My 26th, 1930,
. Louie MU :<m*rymn, Clerk, c i rcui t Court for Baltimore County, Towson, < yland.
In ret CUB© no. 8078 - Settle Ikyor eaS City
Deer S i r t -
X as In reoej
that the above entitled eaee
The notice says that/
when reached, pleat
lor vs. Baltimore*
from you»6o the effect
for t r i a l May 89th, 1830,
the eaee eenaot be t r ied
the Court*
aa writing to adviee you that i t
t defendant to requeet that this ease be cent
* t r i a l . Consequently, I t wil l not be tr ied
on Say 28th, 1930, I haw conferred with eouneel for the plaintiff
and understand that they are advised in the premises.
Very truly yours.
AAD- .
Copy to -. IHIRLI U. Lawrence.
£Sr. Edward L« r ard.
Assistant City o l ioI ter ,
i. W j i
- ******
\I
^eu>o
_
5 7 5 f ! I3UREAU SEWERS 3 - Z Z - 3 Z REAR t )F I ST . HOUSE ON 5 . S I D E OF E A S T E R N A V E . E. OF I SLANO P O I N T ROAI3.
1 :...... i 1 \ .
' V rfO&' * * * !
5 7 5 9 I3UREAU SEWERS 3 - 2 Z - 3 2 THREE HOUSES ON S . S I I 3 E OF E A S T E R N AVE. R E T . I SLANID P O I N T RI3. St RACK R I V E R .
hfc
57BO I3UREAU H O U S E S - L O O K ERN A V E . RET RACK R I V E R .
SEWERS 3 - 2 Z - 3 2 THREE S. - O N S I IDE OF E A S T -ISLANIJ P O I N T ROAIJ Jc
* * M
•».
PHOTOGRAPHERSJ
,
!•£•'<$*£ r N
A
.«* y •\
x
. • • * • • * . •'•.W--
.4*"?
.i 4-
V-
*! V ' . * *
. ' • - ; • ' • ' " '
' . , ; " •
. ' ' ' " '" • V *
*' \"
.' ' :< : > \ -•
*' * ", *'<•„',"
• '' ' 1 -:* .">
v * • , '^ '
\ ? *** V:\*.
•tf ' . 0 ; 'a '
«; "•
•P ;
:•'-*/••
'V'" 5 , ••
-.€ ' • + • "
" • » •
•;-* / < -
•4-.* , - « > - •
X •. » : • .
« .-"N..
7?*
^. >Jhk
• ( • . .
' J-
I*
• • v . * ?•.•..-<,p
• ' • A V ' '•>/>
> : ! • : . * - • •
f ;.\V V. 't . ^
iV*&.
* ':^:m:'r
" l
LEASEHOLDER OR OM/NER .LOCATION OF PROPERTY .
)MY\d taq.Jor ' 526/5.W..f b a c k ' R i v ^ r bridyo,'-
McHi&'TqqI6r : • / \.-^; 376'5.-\A(i 5ack..Riyer. 5 r f d q ^ :
Edqar K&nl(^ ;;
;,': -Edqcir Kenlcj
Edqar 'tebl^.
•'VVflliarn.'.HofnoGifsfe
Ador7}5eohofP4^rij/fewif.<2/. I 5ee PJao'
Jdnoes M-Bobarf i/Carolfrie/, bis 'wife/!
SIB'S. W.i back pfyer Sridcj^'
iz^5.iV.$ Dock River brrdqo/
ASSESSED VALUE
House :*I5Oa00'" : Lof :•" 4 500:"06 ;
HOOSC/.:4I200.00' Lof • 4.':500.'00
Hoas^ : 4 1600.00 •Lof .: 4 500.00 s~~.
17d'5M, from Pack River 'Pridqe
.5&e. Plan V
v5ae Plan , - - > . ,
House: 4 looo.oo Lof ••:. 4 500.00
House.: 4>30op. oo Lof. .:. 4> 1500.00
No Record found 6p properfq beirlOj. assessed
. . . - . (
Shore House:-^5ocj.oo 3J?cnfq Sbed ,Lof
3 0 ; OO"
-f 3o;.oo - ^400 .00
Shore House '$&od.oo Land-. ' .4-60 Q. 00
y
^ y ^
; < > ' ' / . e • i » < •
v.
; S ^ •••«.;vv'.-v •:•'.,
i>w.- >'•'.
,, v ; , v - ' A ^ W . - ' • - , . - ' • • . , ,;;." .- • . • ,-•••••'. ', ' .•:•••
/ •. . .^-•v
i EOGAR ' KeNLY
':*'')• Ovy'n<tr: •"• U.case hold
o ."4 •
A
• ^ ^ • .••-)• 'I te^i^^i' ""<'-; ''•:'.'.;'. V^K
" \ ••
;/:,..
<5co. ;"R. W I ; H , V | / ; &;/;•;:.'••'# ''>r:'>:., ;;<*.«*« *^?«'x 6 w r » « r j 'of"',',.'; '"/
s ^ :
'.; 'V
,*V- ' t .•* * hj •• ,tv->, »y..
. V . ' i -
0
-
.• •-• e-t»yr^-. v
f.j!v
v.. '% ,
V
V.
'OVa'r-,
v> >V.
W'
v , V
• •V* t .
l<&*f" * i. •;, ;^-.r---" ••yr<^ii:'.'<'i , , , . . < » " . • , <;Y V ,
'.',S-'-,.;
• ' / -
/
\ >••• V" • ;^r -...V., :rV&:,y--:W?^ ••.'• • •',• ; •
:••••• • • • ;.• • !. V ' ^ ' , • v- v-V . • ^ • .";" •'•• - ^ W < ^ > ' : S ^ ^ 4"-i.? • ^ •'• ^ "/ . -''-(ST- v ' f k : A ; '& ' . - . • - " • # ; >:4-^S iS"S#>^&^ '
'.• •. . • • • "V-, , •••wji.-,.'* • •• • . • •• . ^^..'ftv\;6t,''i''vt',i,'«.-; »• ."ASi/.'.Cv .'Cr;> "fr:..-
'• .-:••' "• ••••;-v -v.'.^-'-.'- - : ^^? ;v ' - : •. y>-:mm^my:^0m0^f,.
• . < •••';
"-..^ ',A.
• « • * • • •
..•>"
....V..•/.-:>'. •;'"•-•'A'-.' V.v:^ *•••'"';: - t v ; ' 4 : ' ; • ' / . : • . ; •< - .> • . • '
• • . s - • ; ; ; • . ¥ . ' • / ; ' " .•••'.:.
./ *'
A t * ' .• <,..' ,*.',• '. , . ^ • • * > ~ *.., . • I f ' • • • > - • . • • • .V" • • '."• ' ' '. I ' •
:-'•;;•" -^tii^'ifcr^;'Wvfe.jcV ^ 9 o - FoiVo ••'13ZI wB'"^. 1 , ' • > • . ' ' : , - • • - • - ' - .•"•V'.'v-:. •.•.•'".';•' ..•'-'•'••• •. '•'.': '.•:•!&$&'<$
A; . * ; J* *
ADAM; BENHOFi
• Own«rr- IF«« iS iWlc.
/ • . ; xr". •'
«FC 518
"Ms
y.:' "••":&*•& .'••.*' C /AKOt ' iN t " , V't. "'•'".,. s^V-'pv^t7<tir-;.X'->rv- --"Pec"'••'''.:&'i'wpi«:''v ^ : ^ \ ^ . ^ 4 ^ % ^ " '
* . ' • * ' ,
'•le-r- 'k* »w(>»"'»• '•m ' •"*> v , **"'","
"Ll?b«V AXA:P;;C ^ ^ J P c d i o > i . Q 6 ' ;': ' ^ & 1
> ^ y * " * " " ^
**r
>--w'%^
:'*<&. . X .
,'V
> / • 6 v/ a c r Vojfc • ;s :L:^scWbl <i ' •c^m-<o- •-I-:
''*}•> i*4 A:-'v>.
<i'
-•" v
. . . « .
A'y-y
' " •' V ' . .
y ••••-<:; k . * • • * • » » . > " '•'•>W. ' ' 1 ' J. . ' , ,
, • /TV..':."« '••'•.-
"" '''..,• / * «y'•*'•;<'•.'.' > '. ','.-•'.' '".'i'v * "'••'!
•". . • * > • .
* • ' > < • " < . -
: ^ '
•> ~i
'V ' . " . - ^
•' . .-c / ;
- / . , • *r ( / /
8* 'w ' •
" • V " *
% . ' , \ - S ' .
• * . •
•' ' ' f
/ff . ; K** r *r
• \ • / *••
•'- / " .'.:• / . ; • ; ' • : / ' • - . .
•'•• / . :••>•• , -'•>•/-.••.•••' A ::?. . "•' / /-. •- /. '../
rfrrirMrnT'i'"I"''Iir 111 ir'^i,'vj"•• •TM'MIIM'I"'I'J['";y'" rtii^tojjjr—i-—^^i^^^^gy^i^r^^.,..;;,...^.^^*^:^:^...^;u\J..:^..v.^ ^r.^r^^^-^^ww,,^.^^ ••^^gA^wytiwv*.- *rj*y&^^*i^Q*^vfi^mM<*c»»*
, -n
•' M
"."• ••• " " " " / • • ' " ' • ' ' ' • ' " " • '''•"•' ""•• - ' " ^ i r ' ' / •
\ X
," • ;
• •w"
> ; 1 V
1 ,< / r
v. y / A ^ ; ' ' ; i i ^ ^ - ^ ^ •'•^<7 /^L.
. . • /
y "
v «——7V
x: ' . < " < • "
. * ^ . • ' » • * , . • * . . ^ . . ' . / . / .
/
•w 3^.V A". k>'
J- y /
. / ;r. • X
"V
N l : f •.
X ' -^ l , , , A r f > ^ v ^^yu^- :
! y'^^o
../ •' *'
s
I f
'<S
x
^ • ' 1 ; ; A ' ' . ' " A: - - "
• ' i
r / •
'-• ity^--y\'^^T ^v* • '•• . .Vv;-, ^ "
'(,''.'* --\'
'.:.A
> • ><;,
• • : i ^ ^ ^ : " lyttftr"*
T.- • •J
i /•,
A'.',.''
' '".' ," ' .. .. •,
\ - •"^•-
'*.'• '.'"'V; "'''>"•,-.Vs:
• ' H ^ . " * ' . ' • v....
.,... r
% '. ;v; . , -••As.
• V
'. ' . : \ •'•••. '":'••••„ » • ' \ Y ' ' " - ' - i . . , ' , . £ ,
m ^ . ' •.•'"' "*•''"•. ';V.'»1''rVv' t** '»"«*,"?.'V'.,''V,"'*i'.'':Ts' '»;'A'"' '''"V'v.^T''•'-''.".v^iisS
. . . . . . . . ' . ' ' •« A'"*>.:M"!..«. t * ,.../.. < ^
"'•>:;.• • •. *.'.'', • 4 . ' , . ^ '"' ?-*'>;•,•/'•: * v . !"v<5f-'A i, . • • '
.'
-;.". •,;
*~»*e
•:.-. '• i'J:
•' ' / • " , ' ) ' . ' • ' " • <
OJ-.^'T*'''** T 3 * . . / • • • ;
', V ..
M /
>*:'
, ' • • ' - . • • ' • . / * ) . ' ' • > • • ' ; ' • ' ' ' ' •
<, • • • <~, . • „ • ' ' • ' / » • ' / —. . - « . • ' • • '
\ .^
\ •
" / • ' yi # .» •• •' - «rt •*• • - ' / /*' •?)-, ,"< -*t
'A-zir^"
\ .
V ••} • - - . -L -^ -; V;-' ;*.r%> 'y::$Mi&}-\S^<&. ]&&&**.
y /,.•
^ ^ : •"< rV. . ?'.•
' . J''A.
/ •
, . . . " , ' . • , , ' . . . . • " . . . ' & . » * • « * * , ' « '
. ••,•-'.'-.. , „ - ; , ' ; , v - ^ - ; ; ' ' ' ' ' * . C j ' . •*•'
:X<:iwVo^'«^'^-^!«:.^^ ''rM:' ;. ' •.,.":••'•.-»«... '/.'••:,v'::,<;/ '..
-~'xk^.n-?y^yy<0±y. Myf;k.
\ -4^t>%'hfi"' •'/.£•
