Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1866-07-14
LOCAL NEWS.

CiHSCIE CoURT, Judge " glie.-I esterday the
case OF Mrs. Eva 5. Smith against 5. H. HeintL
zleman (U. s. A., late Major General of VOL
unteers-Rep.l was taken up in this court il
coming mp on ah appeal from the decision CT
Judgment for the defendant. Messrs Cox and
Webb for plaintiff and J. J. Coombs for de-
PENDANT.
Tbs circumstances OF the case were these -
The plain an, who was the owner Of dwell
ling house on l street, in 1861 left the city and
with her family went south leaving DR. Hae-
ner as her agent. DIR. Hagner rented the house.
furnished, to the defendant q. $40 per MONTH
the understanding being that the rent should
be increased as the rents of the djoining houses
were increased. The plaintiff conun ued souti,
oath OF allegiance and subsequently came TO
the city and demanded possession Of the house.
The defendant refused and asked that writ
ten notice be given which was done, and the
case came up before the justice, the defendant
refusing to give possession on the ground that
the plaintiff forfeited all right to the property,
iRasmuch as she had taken part in the rebel.
lion, giving il aid and comfort
The defense alleges that the premises he.
longed to one Albert Smith, a brother to the
plaintih, who was in the service of the United
States until July 18th, 1861, when he deserted
and went over to the rebels, and remaining in
the military lines Of the Confederate States he
forfeited all right and title to the premises and
even If the plaintiff was the actual owner she
9th sections Of the act Of July 18th, 1862
The plaintiff claimed that she having taken
the oath Of allegiance, and done all that was
necessary under President Lincoln's procla-
nation, she was fully entitled 10 bring the
present suit and recover possession Of her
premises. Documentary evidence to this eff.
lect was produced, and there was also evil
dence rs TO the value Of the premises, which
were estimated at about $3.50 per annum.
The jury found for defendant
This morning, the case Of the National Met.
ropolitan Bank against j: w: Morsell was
and MI. MOrsell for defendant.
This Is an action to recover &226, alleged to
have been overdrawn by the defendant. The
s. Morsell in 1859, who kept an account with
the bank then known as the Bank Of the Me.
tropolis, made a deposit Of s225, which was, BY
an error. It was alleged BY the plaintiff, placed
account there. =
The plaintiff placed MI. G. H. B. White, the
teller, on the stand, who testiGed that he called
fendant) said he could not iind his bank book:
and witness impression was that he said II the
bank could prove that he owed the money he
would pay T. The last tune the witness called
he presented . certiacate of the Register Of the
Treasury that Judge Mersell's account for the
amount named had been audlted about the
time Of the deposit; which the defendant re-
the case and did not wish to see any papers;
that no one could prove that he ewed the
money. In the first Interview the defendant
said that the claim was out Of date
Inc OueIoO tuo IOUOWluk prayer
for instruction That the evidence offered by
the plaintiff does not impart snch an acknowi-
edgnent Of the debt in question - u sufRcient
to take 1t out Of the statute OF limitation which
the Court refused, and gave instead the fol.
lowing That there is evidence on the part Of
the plsintif tending to prove that the defend.
ant, within three years past, did promise 70 pay
the claim OF the plaintiff provided the latter
should establish It by satisfactory evidence.
The jury found for plaintiff. The DESCENDANT
took exceptions to the instruction, and the case
goes to the Court In General Term.
The May term was adjourned.