Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1868-03-04
THE COURTS.

in the case Of A. g. RIDDLE vs. Brooke Mackall
ST., which was assumpsit to recover fees for
services rendered an t'orney in a divorce suit,
returned a verdict foI the plaintiff Of $50.
The next case that came mp was that of w. 1T.
Owen and Thomas Wilson, survivors Of the
partnership of Corwin, owen d Wilson VS..
Brooke Mackau, Jr.-A. G.. Riddle-McPher-
SON This is also An action of assum psit TO re-
cover tor professional services rendered. LIST.
For prose cutting before the War Department
his claim against the United States for the rent
of lot Of ground on the southwest corner Of
14th street and New York avense, for which he
claims $500; and another claim for rent Of part
of lot on q street, near the northeast corner of
q and 14th streets, go. After the close of the
testimony. both parties rested their case, and
the jury were respited until o-morrow.
TO-ddy-Shields Co. VS.. Mccarthy; judy
msnt by default final.
The case of Owen Il Wilson VS.. Brooke
Mackall, Jr., was resumed and prayers offered
by the plaintiffs were granted with some modi-
hcatiOns by the Court as follo ws:-1st. If any
one OF the members of the firm performed the
services, il was a performance in law by the
whole firm. ID. That for such services as were
performed by the firm or any member thereof,
at the request of the defendant. the firm are en-
titled to compensation. Sd The surviving part
ners Of the nrm are entitled TO sue and recover
the same as though the firm were still in exis-
tence and party plaintiffs to this action. 4th If
there was a contingent fee depending upon sue
cess, and before the termination of the case the
defendant discharged the plaintiffs from the
further prosecution Of the claim, then the de-
fendant is liable to pay fair and reasonable
compensation for services rendered prior 10 such
discharge granted, with the qualification that
the attorneys were dismissed without a
good cause, such as negligence Incapacity,
the like. 5th. 1t can make no difference wheth-
er Gov. COrwin was employed by defendant
prior to the partnership or not provided tse
firm or any member thereof performed the SER
vices with the assent Of defendant. but the
plaintiffs cannot recover for any service render
ed by any member of the partners alp prior TO
its formation. 9th. If plaintiffs were employed
wards discharged for no fault or neglect of
theirs, they are entitled to fair
compensation for services rendered.
9TH. This employment need not be by express
words, but may be inferred from acts of the
defendants, or of the plaintiff done with his
knowlege and consent. Sth. The jury are to
take into consideration not only the time and
labor expended by plaintiff, but also the know
ledge, skill, and ability broug hit to bear in its
prosec utiOn, in deciding what is a fair COM
pensatiOn; and, 9th. The jury are to be governed
by the evidence submitted in this cause, as to
which is a fair compensation.
The following prayers of the defendant were
granted.
The plaintiff cannot recover unless they rem
dered the services charged under contract ex-
pressed or implied with defendant.
I'd. II the jury find that defendant employed
Mr.. Corwin alone and he afterwards went into
a copartnership, and engaged plaintiffs to aid
him. and the plaintiffs rendered the services
charged in pursuance of such engagement, and
none other. the plaintiff cannot recover against
the defendant for services SO rendered.
Sd. Prayer refused.
4th. If the jury belle We from the evidence that
the defendant employed Mr. Corwin to prose-
cute his claim before the Department, and the
contract was one involving a personal trust
and confidence, and was terminated by his
death, and could not be assigned or transferred
to another, and that defendant did not subse-
quently by express agreement or by their acts
and conduct recognize the firm his attorneys,
then he cannot recover.
After these prayers were granted, the conn.,
sci argued the case to the jury.
THE GEORGETOWN AoUEDUCT CASE
CRIMINAL COURT, Chief Justice Cartier
Yesterday after the close of the Hon. Reverdy
.Jobnson's argument in this case, Mr.. Brent,
for United States. resumed, and argued that
the case in II Peters, quoted by Mr.. johnson,
did not determine the question now at issue.
The Corporation of Georgetown in that case
undertook to test the right of the aqueduct to
cross the river. He did not deny the right of
Congress to authorize the building of this
aqueduct, but denied that Congress had
granted the right or power TO locate it at its
present position. He quoted the different acts
of Congress in reference to this question, and
contended that these acts appropriating money
for the purpose of locating the aqued uct and for
restraining wSnton injury to II, We're not such
clear decla OF legislative sanction to this
nuisance, as to BE- conclusive upon the ludg-
ment Of any court or take from them their pro-
per jurisdiction over this case. These were
mere appropriation bills, and never intended
by Congress 10 pass upon the question whether
the queduct was a nuisance or not" and the
act of Eth June. 1874, was not an enlarging act,
but merely one TO protect the property already
constructed OF in the course of construction.
and he argued that the grantee must use his
franchise in obstructing the navigation of a
river that the least possible injury to naviga-
ton will be done. He said when the legislature
did pass upon it, it would be time enough
then to say II was legal structure.
He then quoted from Uhle on Nuisanc-s, to
show how thing not originally a nuisance
might become so afterwards.
Mr. Merrick argued that the question turned
on the construction of the acts of Congress,
and that there must be- some limit TO the choice
of the site: and that all public improvements
ought TO accommodate themselves 10 each other;
and consequently this aqueduct should be so
constructed as to be the least possible injury TO
navigation: and It ought to go to jury to de-
eide the question
To-day-Mr. Brent resumed his argument on
the decision of the Court, that he would hear
arguments on the fourth count in the indict-
ment; after which General Wells proceeded
with his argument.
General Wells argued that there was no Of
fence On the part of the defendants, and urged
that the case be taken from the jury by the
conrt,which should ex- ofiicio notice it.
The question, the Court said, was whether,
under the indictment, this aqueduct was a
nuisance, erected and maintained as such
He elaborately reviewed the whole his
tory OF the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal
Company and of this Aqueduct. Con-
gress having exclusive jurisdiction of this
subject did enact that the Aqueduct should be
erected, ana Ne Tedu IRON II refers the decision
of Justice Barbour, that the Alexandria Canal
Company had a clear grant of power. He
asked will the law stop to notice criminal acts,
in slight departure from this power. He SAID
there would have to be hagitious departure
from the grant, and only in that case can a
criminal action be brought. 1t is said also
that this structure was mslocated, and
might have gone higher up the river,
beyond navigation. The law contemplated
however, the passing of the Potomac river at
the Inconvenience of navigation. This was an
enterprise to cross the iver at any point from
the termination of the canal to the head of nav
Igation, and the United States comes here and
asks this court to punish a corporation for
doing what they have sanctioned by giving
them power to do, and made il by a penal
statute unlawful TO do the very thing
IL now comes and asks this court TO do
The fourth count of the Indictment recites that
by certain alterations and additions the nayiga-
ton is INSTRUCTED, and whereby a nuisance is
created. IL describes things: il is not as
definite as piece of chalk. 1t is defective i'm
matter of description. How could you execute
the writ on these alterations. l can imagine the
Marshal going there and abating certain altera-
lions, but not the right ones. 1t would be
utterly impossible for jury to return
verdict, or the Marshal to execute under
this indictment. The question might have
been raised in the indictment whether
IN the case OF misusure, the thing NAV
be indicted as a nuisance. All these consider
atoms have brought me TO the conclusion that
the aqueduct as completed in 1897 is a legal
structure, fortified by more legislative sanctions
than any other cooperative structure 1 know
of. For / have never met with any instance
where the law making no war ha 81 rapa.,a3I,,