Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1865-02-11
LOCAL NEWS.

liOOAL NE NO.
CIRCUIT CoURT-ChisfJu Justice Cartter.--Yea-
terday, in the case of Kauff agt. Cor poration
OF w ashington-appeal from Justice Clayton
the judgment below was affirmed.
In TINS case the facts, subs tantially, were as
IolloWs: Inc plaintiff, appellant was the
owner of an old frame house, one and half
stories high, about twenty feet front by sixteen
deep, winch was built under the building reg
ulalonS OF 1888, allowing the construction Ct
such houses. A brick house was subseq uentiy
built adjoining this frame, and forming its
eastern gable Wall, higher and of greater depth
than the frame.
The old frame house became greatly dilapI.
dated, and some time in the summer OF 1861 the
owner egan to enlarge i. by extending it front
some six or eight feet, to the west; also in
depth; and raising it to three stories high; the
Whole TO be OF frame, or wood. In Going this
the brick foundations were enlarged, or new
ones put in to fieet this intended structure:
new silis were put IN on the north, west. and
south; the half story taken off: all the floors
as could be used were LETT in their places, or
employed in other parts OF the building, the
west wall was removed IN some eight or ten
inches, so as to accommodate the addition on
that side; the framing of this structure v-es
completed and the workmcn were putting on
the Notwithstanding and sheathing, when they
to desist, and not doing SO this warrant was
taken out the next day. The Plan of finishing
the building was then changed, and instead OF
Notwithstanding the exterior walls were filled
In with bricS between the sruddi::g and braces,
and thus the house was completed. In addi-
ton to this back building about twelve by
fifteen feet, one story high, framed and filled In
with brick, was constructed, connected with
the front building.
1t was in evidences by the appellant that
from the foundation of the city buildings not
more than 20 by 15 feet and not more than -
feet high, OF frame had been constructsu under
building regulations, prior TO the passage OF
In 1922. Since then persons had been allowed
Wltnout objection. to add to such Structures,
by what are called 6rSoe nogged houses, .hat is
houses framed, and the framing filled IL with
brick as in this case.
The Judge said this ast'tessimony wa. the
only en- barrassment which he felt in dispcsing
In order to prevent extended eonftagrations,
destruction OF the most ra4uabae property n
the city, yet such indulgence In the palpakle-
evasions OF this salutery law affcrted some ez.
cuse for the conduct of tseappeifant.
Bat he was required to give g. Judicial inteY
probation OF the law and to apply it to the
facts OF this case There was,na room for con-
struction. The act out of asundsnt caution
had provided that if any ore or mere sides OF
any building was frame, although the gable
ends nsEht be brick, it was frame tnilcing
within the meaning of the act. To hil NIP a
frame building in the manner desc ribed in mis-
case, making wall four inches thsek inter
sectet with frames, plastersd without aiad
within. so that in case OF fire tlese connection ne
shoGld form hRes for the draft OF air, was bat
to increase the dangers, because iR addition to
these drafts of air the brick walls were the
freE1en greatly increased.
In this particular case the Calculating had
been 80 effectaalIy removed, tn Ii IL was scarce
Iy possible to trace in the new where the olct
had been, new external walls, enlarged and in
in height, new interior watls-in..
in ths first floor, and An en-
tire addition OF two new storissS make this
new house, and 1t was evidently. designed as
an evasion OF the law.
Nor was the action premature The frame OF
the heass was ap, and it was nc. necessary to
wait It's completion, in order 70 make it an
erection within the meaning Of the act.
1t washis opinion that the case eanae fully
within the prohibition of the law. Under the
usage which had been SO long tolerated it was
for the City Councils to say W. sther the fine
should be enforced or not; but hs ordered the
judgement OF the Justice to be affirmed with
costs.
WI. Miller for -Aauff, Joseph HI Bradley,
ST., sor Corporation.
from the decision OF Justice E-insey- Lips
cemo leased the house SOC Massachusetts ave-
nue., OF Hobs, ia 1861, and the Latter desiring to
terminate the tenancy, gave ahaifyears notice,
and one question involved YVES whether this
notice expired concident with the current year
Of tenancy there being 1sn S,s SosS. whether the
years OF the LIST December. Lipesomb paid the
first months rent on the 1tth OF Uece usber, 1861,
but subsequently for convenience, paid the
rent on or about the first of eSch moath, and 1t
was claimed by the counsel that this change OF
payment worked a change of the commence.
ment of the tenancy to the first of the month.
Ii oQAaittcu tuoI tulS Woo q fc0<Iy toHduCy,
whether commencing on the 10th Of November
or list of December.
Htbbs having lately taken up O. residence in
New York, executed a regular and formal
power, of attorney to his soE.in- law, Wilson E.
Brown, of this city, and this Brevn being the
person who instituted the proceedings before
Justice Kinsey under She. new law for the
recovery OF possession OF the tenant, the ptan-
cipal question Of the case was whether the
complaint should not have been made by the
andlord in person, an i,not by attorney
no NQrf CF fhn faro n
as the statute fact Of 4th July, leo2, secSon -
required the complaint to be maoe osIsre
justice of the peace upon the oatn on some per
son entitled to the possession Oh tue premises,
Ii eould be m ade by no one else, and that any
other constructor would ia volve the Abs urdity
of q personal oath by proxy.
The Court thcaght il was not necessary to
basr argument against this last Position, and
nrcmptiy oyerfuled il. The CoEEt held that
the com plant being Baaoe by the attorney, was
evidently noa In Conformity TO the verbiage of
the statute. hut that the RENE dy intended by
the law would be ab0rtive upoa, so strict con.
struction, whenever the complainant was a
non. resident Personal presence could not
have been intended of d foreign landlord. Prac.
tical effect m asst, if possible, be given to the
law. The 'sperson" mentioned Ia it was the
person entitled to represent the landlord.
Moreover, the only object OF requiring an cath
wss to give the magistrate a basis for hia Of.
fetal action. This basis was all the hetter In
this case, as being the oath of a disiIserested
party.
Judge Cartier also instructed the Jury that
II they were satisfied that Lipscoab took pos.
session Of the house on the 10th of November,
that was to be regarded as the com me q Gem emit
Of the tenancy, unless 1t was 10 evidence that