Maryland case law › Ruth v. State

Ruth v. State

20 Md. 436 (1864) · Maryland Court of Appeals
Maryland Court of AppealsDisposition: ReversedBowie, C. J.✓ Good law
HoldingThis action was instituted by the appellees (Kennard, plaintiff below) against the appellant (Ruth, defendant below) to recover penalties under the Act of 1722, ch.

Bowie, C. J., delivered the opinion of this Court : This action was instituted by the appellees against the appellant, for the recovery of certain penalties under the Act of 1722, ch. 8, entitled, “An Act for preventing the destroying of boundaries, or bounded trees, and the bounding of trees, or setting up of boundaries, without lawful authority.” At the trial.of the cause below, after the evidence had been submitted and closed, the appellant presented four prayers, involving the interpretation of this Act. A judgment for the plaintiff was entered pro formo., that the case might be brought up to this Court, where no exception has been taken in the argument to the form of the prayers. Considering the case as argued before us on the interpretation of the Act, we proceed to its construction. No authorities have been cited by the counsel on either side, in support of their conflicting views of the interpretation of this Act, whence it is concluded, none are to be found.

Our own examinations have led to a like result. The Court is therefore left to the usual - rules of construction. The preamble of the Act recites, “that many abuses and prejudices have happened to many of the inhabitants within this province, occasioned by private persons taking upon themselves in a private manner, the bounding or rebounding of trees, whereon the bounds either of their own lands or any other adjacent lands that may have any dependence, and also, by bounding of trees at random in the woods, the multiplicity of which renders the true boundaries of lands very precarious and uncertain; and likewise by the cutting down or destroying of bounded trees, either of or upon their own lands, or any others; for the remedy of 441 which evils for the future, the cutting down or destroying of boundaries or bounded trees, was enjoined and prohibited under a penalty of five thousand pounds of tobacco, and the bounding and ro-bouuding of trees, without lawful authority and without giving notice to all concerned, as therein prescribed, was prohibited under a like penalty. It tints appears the bounding of trees without

This is a preview of Ruth v. State. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.