« AnteriorContinuar »
existed, and that the grantor in the deed was murder, guilty of manslaughter, and sentence fictitious. In the option agreement, signed was duly imposed. Fourteen bills of excepby Judge Russum as trustee and as attorney tion were reserved in the course of the trial, for the purchaser, the name of the latter, as all upon questions of the admissibility of evi. copied for the record, is given as Henutt, and dence. At the hearing of this appeal all the that is the name which the court below, with exceptions were abandoned by the appellant its ample opportunity to inspect the original except the third, fourth, sixth, seventh, and papers, treated as the correct designation of ninth. the person to whom the land was sold by the The state insists that the first second, trustee. In the face of the certificate of the third, fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth, ninth, notary in Philadelphia before whom the deed and fourteenth exceptions were not in such was acknowledged, we are not at liberty to form as properly to be considered, for the hold upon mere negative proof of failure to reason that in each of these exceptions a find the grantor during the pendency of this number of questions have been included in a cause that no such person was in existence single exception. This method of taking exat the time of the execution of the deed. The ceptions has been frequently condemned by action of Judge Russum as trustee in mak- this court (Ellicott v. Martin, 6 Md. 517, 61 ing and reporting the sale precludes any Am. Dec. 327; Tall v. Steam Packet Co., 90 question as to his knowledge of the purchas- Md. 250, 44 Atl. 1007, 47 L, R. A. 120; Acker er's identity.
M. & C. Co. v. McGaw, 106 Md. 560, 68 Atl. Upon the case presented we can have no 17), and in Junkins v. Sullivan, 110 Md. 539, doubt as to the propriety of the decree passed 73 Atl. 264, B. & O. v. Rueter, 114 Md. 700, by the court below dismissing the bill of com SO Atl. 220, Cit. Mut. F. I. Co. v. Conowingo plaint.
Br. Co., 116 Md. 439, 82 Atl. 372, Harris v. Decree allirmed, with costs.
Hipsley, 122 Md. 435, 436, 89 Atl. 852, and
Weeks v. State, 126 Md. 223, 94 Atl. 774, (128 Md. 122)
this court refused to consider exceptions
which contained this vice. In most of these FRICK V. STATE. (No. 9.)
cases, under one exception was sought to be (Court of Appeals of Maryland. Feb. 10, 1916.) included essentially distinct propositions, 1 HOMICIDE O 158(3)-EVIDENCE-ADMISSI and thus differed from the exceptions critiBILITY-GENERAL THREATS.
cized by the state in this case. Without the In a prosecution against a railroad policeman for homicide, threats made by the accused
slightest disposition to relax in any degree are admissible, though they were not directed this salutary rule, but because in part of the against deceased or against any class to which slight difference in which it comes before the he belonged.
court in this record, and in part because of [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Homicide, Cent. Dig. § 295; Dec. Dig. 158(3).]
the seriousness of the case, and in part be 2. HOMICIDE 158(2) – ADMISSIBILITY OF
cause the precise question now presented has EVIDENCE-THREATS-REMOTENESS.
not been adjudicated by this court, it seems The remoteness or nearness in time of better to deal directly with the question threats to kill made by accused do not affect the
which the appellant now raises. admissibility of such threats but only the weight to be attached to them.
 Each of the exceptions upon which [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Homicide, there is any contention presents one and pracCent. Dig. $ 294; Dec. Dig. ww158(2).]
| tically the same point, namely, the admissiAppeal from Criminal Court of Baltimore bility of threats made by the defendant at vaCity: Juhn J. Dobler. H. Arthur Stump, and rious times before he shot the deceased. A Carroll T. Bond, Judges.
witness, Davis, testified that on the day beWilliam H. Frick was convicted of man
fore the shooting the accused had said in a slaughter, and he appeals. Affirmed.
barroom not far distant from where the Argued before BOYD, C. J., and BRIS homicide took place, that "he was going to COE, BURKE, PATTISON, URNER, STOCK
kill some of them G-dd- n niggers," BRIDGE, and CONSTABLE, JJ.
and two days earlier had heard the accused
make use of the same expression. Another Raymond S. Williams, of Baltimore (Harry
witness for the state. Mrs. Laig, testified B. Wolf, of Baltimore, on the brief), for ap
that two weeks before Chaney was shot she pellant. Horton S. Smith, Asst. State's Atty.,
heard the accused say: of Baltimore, and Albert C. Ritchie, Atty.
"He don't get justice at the station houses Gen. (Wm. F. Broening, State's Atty., of
when he brought anybody up there; that the Baltimore, on the brief), for the State. next one he caught on the car he was going to
shoot, and take them either crippled or their STOCKBRIDGE, J. William H. Frick, a bodies to the station house as evidence." policeman for the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, Charles W. Laig, a state's witness, and was indicted for the murder in the city of the husband of the preceding witness, testiBaltimore of Evers Chaney, a white youth. fied to having the same conversation with the He pleaded not guilty, and elected to be tried accused to which his wife had testified, and before the court in preference to a jury. The gave substantially the same expression as trial resulted in a verdict of not guilty of having been uttered by the accused.
some one not d
Miss Nellie Gibney, a state's witness, with-1 An hour after saying this the defendant out fixing the date, testified to having heard went to the house of the deceased. the conversation in Mrs. Laig's house, and "We think that this evidence was admissible. gave as the language of the accused substan- | Being connected, as it was, with the declaration
and acts of the accused at the house of the tially the same expression as that testified to der
deceased, so soon afterwards, it tended to show by Mr. and Mrs. Laig. It was to the admis- animus on the part of the accused towards the sibility of these threats that the exceptions deceased; and, further, the declaration of the reserved by the appellant, and now insisted
insisted accused tended to show an abandoned, reck
less, and malicious spirit on the part of the acon, apply. The rule governing the admissi- cused. This conclusion is supported by Jordan bility of such evidence is stated in 21 Cyc. v. State, 79 Ala. 9; Anderson v. State, 79 Ala. 922, as follows:
5; Harrison V. State, 79 Ala. 29; Dixon V. State, 13 Fla, 636; State v. Grant, 79 Mo. 113
||49 Am. Rep. 218); State V. Hymer, 15 Nev. nitely designated is admissible in evidence where 49: Benedict v. State 14 Wis 493 other facts adduced give individuation to it;
"Vague threats, not against any particular but general threats not shown to have refer
person, have often been admitted and are comence to the deceased cannot be proved."
petent evidence. Rex v. Barbot, 18 How State
Tr. 1251; Benedict v. State, 14 Wis. 423." For this statement the following cases are
In line with this case are the following cited: Redd v. State, 68 Ala. 492; State v.
cases. State v. Hoyt, 47 Conn. 539, 36 Am. Crabtree, 111 Mo. 136, 20 S. W. 7; Melton V. State, 47 Tex. Cr. R. 451, 83 S. W. 822.
Rep. 89, in which the language used by the
accused was: The author of the article in Cyc. then contin
| "I don't know, but I shall be in Canada in a ues:
little less than a week; don't know but I shall "So also words, uttered under such circum- kill some one in a week." stances as prima facie to import a threat, are
This was used in a conversation relating to admissible."
the defendant's father. The testimony was In this case the threat was a general one; admissible. It rises to the character of a it was not directed against a particular indi-threat, which, from the conversation about vidual, nor, unless the use of the term "nig- the father and his estate, the jury would gers" can be so construed, was it a threat have had the right to construe as aimed at against a class; and, even if regarded as a the father. It showed most clearly the rethreat against a class, it was not a class to vengeful and murderous passions which were which the defendant belonged. It must there taking possession of the mind of the accused. fore be regarded in the light merely of a gen- In Hopkins v. Com., 50 Pa. 9, 88 Am. Dec. 518, eral threat, without any individualization. it was held that:
The cases in this country are not entirely "Threats made by a prisoner, within an hour harmonious as to the proper rule to be ap before the commission of the murder, that 'he plied in such cases. The courts of Texas,
would kill somebody before 24 hours,' are evi
Idence of malice prepense. though they did not Missouri, and Alabama have, in a number of expressly refer to the deceased, and if he killed instances, held such general threats to be in anybody in pursuance of such malice, it was admissible, but hold them as admissible if murder in the first degree." directed against an individual or a class.
In the case of Benedict v. State, 14 Wis. In the case of Redd v. State, supra, while
while 423, the defendant had made use of the folthe threats attempted to be offered in evi- lowing expression: "I will take some man's dence were excluded by the court, because
| life before next Sunday”—and, speaking of a too general, the court, nevertheless, uses
knife, it "would probably be the death of this language:
some one before the week was out,” that he "The force of the threat may affect its weight
"had made up his mind to kill a man," and as evidence, while not rendering it inadmissible. that if the witnesses “should hear of the death Whatever, may be its force, whether absolute of any person before the week was out, they or conditional, whether it indicates a purpose
need not be alarmed." These were all adonly contemplated or fully matured, it is admissible in evidence because indicating the state
mitted over objection, and the ruling was susof mind of the accused, and of the feelings he tained. And to the same general effect as the entertained or cherished towards the deceased." cases already referred to are the following: In State v. Crabtree, before cited, it ap
Whittaker v. Commonwealth, 17 S. W. 358, 13
Ky. Law Rep. 504; State v. King, 9 Mont. peared that the accused and the deceased had been on friendly terms up until the day
445, 24 Pac. 265; Hodge v. State, 26 Fla. 11, of the homicide, and it was held error to
7 South. 593. In this state the case most have admitted general threats made by the
by the nearly in point is Kernan y. State, 65 Md. defendant a considerable period before that 253
253, 4 Atl. 124, in which on the subject of time. A large number of cases upon this
general threats Judge Irving uses the folsubject are collected in an extended note in
lowing language: 17 L R. A. 654, and among the cases there
"It cannot have been offered to show his
character for turbulence, and was not admissible cited is the case of the State v. Larkins, 5 for such purpose. A simple act of that kind Idaho, 200, 47 Pac. 945. In that case it ap- would not prove that he had that character. peared that three hours before the homicide But such an act, so soon followed by the killing
of a man, did show a reckless and mischievous the defendant said to a third party:
frame of mind at a period so near the killing "I would like to take you with me, but I as to be admissible, though the thing itself bave à dirty piece of business to do to-night." may not, possibly, be legitimately part of the
ars that the tobot be granted
res gestæ. We think it was evidence to show of estimates, a bill to enjoin the action of the that he was armed and prepared to kill, though board of estimates, in removing or interfering it did not, of itself, show intention to kill the with the building at the urgent request of the deceased.”
government, heard after the beginning of its reAnd the principle upon which all of these
moval to another part of the park grounds to a cases rests is that laid down in Wills on Cir.
foundation prepared so as to be still within the
control of the board of park commissioners, was cumstantial Evidence, page 62, where the properly dismissed. writer says:
[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Injunction, "It is not uncommon with persons about to Cent. Dig. $$ 142, 150; Dec. Dig. 74.) engage in crime to utter menaces, or to make obscure and mysterious allusions to purposes 2 INJUNCTION Owl-GROUNDS-DISCRETIOX and intentions of revenge, or to boast to others, | OF COURT. whose standard of moral conduct is the same as. The right to an injunction is not ex debito their own, of what they will do, or to give vent justitiæ, and the application therefor is ad. to expressions of revengeful purposes or of malig-dressed to the sound conscience of the chancel. nant satisfaction at the anticipated occurrence lor, acting upon all the circumstances of each of some serious mischief. Such declarations or particular case. allusions are of great moment when clearly con-| [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Injunction, nected by independent evidence with some subse- Cent. Dig. & 1; Dec, Dig. ml.] quent criminal action. The just effect of such language is to show the existence of the dis- | 3. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS 993(1) position from which criminal actions proceed to | REMEDIES OF TAXPAYERS-INJUNCTION. render it less improbable that a person proved An injunction to restrain the ultra vires or to have used it would commit the offense charg- illegal acts of municipal corporations or ofed, and to explain the real motive and charac- ficial officers will not be granted, unless it apter of the action."
pears that the taxpayer would be injured by  Additional objections were urged
the acts complained of. against the admissions of the threats testi- |
(Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Municipal fied to by Mr. and Mrs. Laig and Miss Gib- 993
Corporations, Cent. Dig. & 2158; Dec. Dig,
993(1).] ney, but the remoteness or nearness of time as to threats and declarations, pertaining to 4. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS 993(1)
REMEDIES OF TAXPAYERS-INJUNCTION. an act subsequently committed, makes no dif.
A bill by plaintiffs, constituting the ma. ference as to the competency of the evidence; jority of the board of park commissioners, also it goes only to the amount of weight to be at suing individually as residents and taxpayers, tached to it. Keener v. State, 18 Ga. 194, 63 to enjoin the board of estimates and other city Am. Dec. 269; Cribbs v. State, 86 Ala. 613,
2 officials from removing or interfering with the
location or use of a building on grounds within 6 South. 109. In Pate v. State, 94 Ala. 14, 10 the control of the park board, which unless it South. 665, the threats testified to had been had been removed would have been destroyed made four months before the homicide was
by the national government, from which it was
| bought, could not be maintained, as they could committed, in State v. Bradley, 64 Vt. 466,
not possibly be injured by the expenditure of 24 Atl, 1053, the lapse of time had been from public money for the protection and conservasix to eight months, and in Peterson v. Toner, tion of public property. 80 Mich. 350, 45 N. W. 346, Territory v. Rob- [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Municipal erts, 9 Mont. 12, 22 Pac. 132, and Babcock v. Corporations, Cent. Dig. § 2158; Dec. Dig.
Om993(1).] People, 13 Colo. 515, 22 Pac. 817, the threats had been made three years before the assault 5. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS Om721 (1) out of which these cases arose, took place.
| PUBLIC PARKS-CONTROL-STATUTES. In accordance with expressions of Judge
Under Ordinance No. 60, approved July
| 21, 1860, and confirmed by subsection 16 of the Irving, already given, and the preponderance city charter, and section 91 of the charter, vestof opinion of the courts of this country, the ing the charge and control of parks in the board threats in the present case were admissible, of park commissioners, and in the absence of and the trial court committed no error in its
any charter obligation upon the board of esti
mates with respect to the public parks of the rulings.
city, the interference by the board of estimates Judgment affirmed.
with the control and management of a building under control of park commissioners was unau
thorized. (128 Md. 140)
[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Municipal WILLIAMS et al., Board of Park Com'rs, v. Corporations, Cent. Dig. 1542; Dec, Dig. Om MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF 721(1).] BALTIMORE et al. (No. 26.)
Appeal from Circuit Court No. 2 of Balti. (Court of Appeals of Maryland. Feb. 10, 1916.) može City; Chas. W. Heuisler, Judge. 1. INJUNCTION 74 - PUBLIC PROPERTY
"To be officially reported." CONTROL BY BOARDS.
Bill by George Weems Williams and othWhere the United States government grant-ers, constituting the Board of Park Commised the use of a tract to the mayor and city sioners coinut the Navor and City Council council of Baltimore, which was accepted by the city as a public park and placed in charge of of Baltimore and the Board of Estimates. the board of park commissioners, which out of Temporary injunction dissolved, and bill disits funds purchased a building on a part re missed, and defendants appeal. Affirmed. served by the government on condition of removing it from such reservation, and the location.
Argued before BOYD, C. J., and BRISCOE, and use of the building was in dispute between | BURKE, THOMAS, PATTISON, URNER. the board of park commissioners and the board STOCKBRIDGE, and CONSTABLE, JJ.
George Weems Williams, of Baltimore, for government for the sum of $50 in September, appellants. Edw. J. Colgan, Jr., of Balti- 1914, to be used in connection with the park more, and S. S. Field, City Sol., of Baltimore, and paid for out of the park funds, but the for appellees.
title to and ownership of the building after
its purchase were vested in the city. BURKE, J. This case grows out of a con
After the building had been acquired by troversy between the board of park commis
the city the question arose as to the specific sioners and the board of estimates of Balti- |
of Balti. I purpose for which it should be used. At the more city, two of the boards of the municipal
time of the acquisition of the building by the corporation, respecting the control and man
city, and for many years prior thereto, there agement of one of the public parks of the
were a number of boat clubs located at Ferry city. The plaintiffs constitute a majority of
Bar. The ground upon which these clubs the board of park commissioners--four of
was located had been acquired by the Westthe five members of that board-and were
ern Maryland Railroad for use as terminal authorized to file the bill in this case by
facilities, and the clubs were desirous of seresolution of the board. They also sue indi
curing better and more permanent locations. vidually as residents and taxpayers of Bal
The ground on the south side of Ft. McHenry timore city. The bill is filed against the
is admirably adapted for the location of mayor and city council of Baltimore and the
boat clubs. It rises rapidly from the water, board of estimates. In so far as it seeks
and the sloping hillsides afford opportunity any relief against the municipal corporation
for a large number of people to witness boatfor the acts complained of, it is obvious that
ing, rowing, and other water sports. It was the bill cannot be maintained, for the simple
accordingly proposed that the boat clubs be reason that the corporation, as such, has
located at Ft. McHenry. It was thought redone nothing to cause or bring about the sit
gattas and other aquatic sports would popu. uation complained of in the bill. The acts
larize the park and furnish entertainment to complained of were done by the board of es
great numbers of the people of Baltimore, timates, and there is nothing to show that
and by attracting people from other states the corporation itself contributed to create
would advertise the city. This proposal was the condition which gave rise to the suit.
favorably received by the boat clubs and by The bill and answer are quite full, but it
the board of estimates, and was taken under
consideration by the board of park commisis unnecessary to set out the respective con
sioners. A committee was appointed, of tentions of the parties by quoting at any
which Mr. Williams, the president of the length from the pleadings, which suggest a
park board, was a member, to arrange the number of interesting legal questions. But
details of an agreement to be entered into the real questions which must control the case lie within a narrow limit, and are, we
between the boat clubs and the city under
which they might remove and locate at Ft. think, free of difficulty. The controlling
McHenry. After numerous meetings of the facts disclosed by the record may be briefly
committee the final draft of the agreement stated. Pursuant to an act of Congress ap proved by the President on May 26, 1914,
was prepared fixing the terms and conditions,
a number of which being suggested by Mr. and an ordinance of the mayor and city council of Baltimore passed in June, 1914, the
Williams, upon which the boat clubs might use of a tract of land, comprising about 38
| remove and locate at Ft. McHenry. Mr. Wil
liams was personally favorable to the reacres, situated on Locust Point, in Baltimore
moval, and approved the terms of the procity, and known as Ft. McHenry, was grant
posed agreement embodied in the final draft; ed by the government of the United States to
but he was at all times careful to have it the mayor and city council of Baltimore and
Tumore and understood what he did was not intended to accepted by the city as a public park. After bind the board of park commissioners. He its acceptance the property was placed in testified: the charge and custody of the board of park! “My obiect in getting on that committee was commissioners. A portion of the land of the my mind was not made up as to whether the military reservation at Ft. McHenry was re- boat club proposition was good or bad. * * served by the United States government by
I went on the committee, and I was very care
ful until I think I got to be a perfect bore on the act of Congress referred to for an immi
the subject that any suggestion I made was not gration station which the government was intended to bind the board. about to construct at large expense. On the | "Mr. Colgan: What board are you referring land reserved by the government as a site
“Witness: The park board. for the new immigration station there was "(Witness continuing :) My idea was, and I located a substantial frame building, worth think the idea of the committee was, to get the approximately $5,000, which had been used best proposition from the boat clubs that could as a "canteen building" when Ft. McHenry
be gotten, so that, when the discussion took
place, it would be on something that was subwas used for military purposes. To make stantial and concrete, rather than have just a room for the building of the immigration mass meeting of 10 or 15 gentlemen and nothstation it was necessary to tear down or re
ing ready before us. Now, on the 3d of Decem
ber, I think by December 2d, Mr. McCay, who move this building. The building was pur
was on the committee-the committee was, as I
sentatives from the four boat clubs-sent me a , for the use of the Corinthian Yacht Club, at s report, and I sent it back with suggestions, and cost estimated not to exceed seven thousand, I told them that I concurred in it, but that I dollars ($7,000.00). could not bind the board. Then around the last “(3) That the Maryland Motorboat Club's i of January, 1915, the draft of the agreement building be moved to the location shown on the was sent me, I distributed copies of it to the accompanying blueprint, and be put in prope members of the board, and we had a number of order, at a cost estimated not to exceed fire meetings."
thousand dollars ($5,000.00).
"(4) That the Ariel Rowing Club's building It was contemplated that the agreement be moved to the location shown on the accomshould be signed by the boat clubs, the mayor panying blueprint, and fixed up, at an expelse and city council of Baltimore, by the hand of estimated not to exceed four thousand dollars Mr. Preston, mayor, and approved by the
"All of the above work, that is, moving the board of park commissioners and the board canteen building for the Corinthian Yacht Club,
Land moving the buildings of the Arundel Boat clubs, but not by the mayor, nor was it ap
Club, Maryland Motorboat Club, and the Ariel proved by the board of park commissioners | all of said buildings, and fixing them up in good
Rowing Club, building proper foundations for or board of estimates. The final draft of the order for the use of the clubs, and to provide agreement which it was proposed should be suitable landings, to be done by contracts awan. signed by each of the above-named parties
ed by the board of awards, in the usual way of is here inserted:
city contracts, after public advertisement, ur
on specifications prepared by the city engineer “This agreement made this - - day of Jan-and approved by the board of park commission. uary, in the year nineteen hundred and fifteen, ers, said specifications to be so prepared as to between the mayor and city council of Balti- call for bids separately: more and the following boat clubs, all of which “(1) Upon moving and placing on suitable are incorporated, namely: Arundel Boat Club, foundations and wharfs provided by contractors Corinthian Yacht Club, Maryland Motorboat each of the buildings specified above. Club, and Ariel Rowing Club--witnesseth that: “(2) Upon making the proper alterations and
"Whereas, the said four clubs have for a num- repairs to each of said buildings. ber of years past had their respective clubhous- “ (3) Also upon all of said work, as a whole, es located at Ferry Bar, in the city of Balti- with the proviso in the specifications giving to more, and were occupying the ground under the board of awards the power to award the leases for short terms; and
whole work or any portion or portions thereof "Whereas, the mayor and city council of Bal- to any bidder, and also the right to reject any timore has recently secured from the United and all bids; the plans and specifications for States of America the authority to use and im- said buildings, repairs, and improvements to be prove Ft. McHenry as a public park, with the prepared by C. R. Le Land, architect, heretoriparian rights attached thereto, and the said fore selected by the board of awards, with the mayor and city council, through its ordinance approval of the said boat clubs. of estimates for the year 1915, has made ap "It is further understood and agreed that, if, propriations for the improvement of Ft. Mc- after said bids are all in, it should appear froin Henry and the water front on the south side said bids and other incidental expenses, includthereof, known as the 'Approach to Spring ing the architect's commissions, that the total Gardens,' and it is contemplated that the city expenditure in connection with the moving and shall build a breakwater extending from the relocating of said boat club houses would erpoint of Ft. McHenry into the Middle branch ceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00), of the Patapsco river, and thus furnish, on the then the mayor and city council of Baltimore south side of Ft. McHenry and west of said shall have the right to terminate this contract, breakwater, a very desirable and suitable place and thereafter be under no obligation whatsofor the location of boat club houses, and the ever in the matter. anchorage of pleasure boats of various kinds, “In the event, however, that the city awards and for the purpose of adding to the attraction the contracts for said work, then the payment of said park and making said park a popular for all of said work will be made in the first inwater-front park, and to encourage the use of stance by the mayor and city council of Baltisaid park for aquatic sports, the said mayor and
more out of the appropriation of fifty thousand city council of Baltimore has invited the said dollars ($50,000.00) made to the board of park four clubs to rent the portion of the space thus commissioners for improvements at Ft. Me to be provided by the improvements above men- Henry in the ordinance of estimates for 1915. tioned, shown on attached drawing, and the said "Each of said clubs, except the Corinthian four clubs, desiring to do all in their power to Yacht Club, will pay to the mayor and city make said public park a success, and to show council of Baltimore the following annual their appreciation of the efforts of said mayor amounts, payable in quarterly installments in and city council to give them a desirable loca- each year, accounting, as to each club, from the tion therein, have agreed to rent the spaces date when the building to be occupied by each thus to be provided. and which have been al- club and the improvements thereof hereby conlotted to each of them, and by reason of the templated shall be completed, the same being large cost in removing their buildings and mak-calculated to cover rental for the spaces OCing the necessary repairs thereto occasioned by cupied,
od hv cupied, interest on the amounts advanced by the said removal, said clubs, and each of them, have City; and
city, and a sinking fund to pay for the advancrequested the mayor and city council of Balti
polhof Baities thus made; that is to say, each of said clubs more to assist them financially, and the mayor
of shall pay to the mayor and city council of Baland city council of Baltimore has agreed to do
| timore 5 per cent. annually as interest and to 80, upon the following terms and stipulations cover the use of the space occupied, and 7 per hereinafter set forth:
cent. annually as a sinking fund to reimburse “(1) That the Arundel Boat Club's building the city for its outlay, or a total of 12 per cent. be moved to the location shown on the accom- annually, to be paid for twelve years by each panying blueprint, and fixed up, at an expense club, in quarterly installments, accounting from estimated not to exceed five thousand dollars the respective dates when the respective club ($5,000.00).
buildings and improvements are completed, said "(2) That the old canteen building now on 12 per cent. to be calculated upon the actual Ft. McHenry be moved to the location shown amount which may be expended by the mayor