Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1872-04-29
The PoIIard.Lyou Gases.

ON the INST Of November, 1853; that Lyon ayr 20
a. p hotel, TO be called the ST. Cloud; mat he
viii furnish il and pay all bills Incur red in car
Tying ON the hotel; mat Mrs. p. viii take the
supeIibtendence, siid in CONSIDERATION receive
one fifth OF the pet income, excluding rent; that
there shall be a monthly settlement &c; that
this agreement shall be void by either party
giving notice in writing, to take effect thirty
Gays aitel date. And plaintiff averred that de-
ftndant fOrcibly expelled her from the hotel
without the requisite notice.
Defendant offered TO prove that he served the
notice required on plaintiff on July 18th; and on
the 18th OF September he served on her another
notice that the time had expired that she was no
longer superintendent and not entitled to the
sIrellatlon OF Froprietress; that shortly after
that date she became deran ged and was removed
to the insane asylum BY the advice of her Dby-
s.eian, and that the hotel had Yielded no profits
slhce htr connection with 1t. Defendant gave
Iotlce that he proposed to prove failure on her
tart 10 carry out the contract, and that her con-
Guct was s1ch as to iniure the reputation of the
rouse ana offered to prove that by the use of
olAates she was disqualified from properly at
tendlng the buSinesS; and her mental condition
was unsOund, and the court ruled out this testi-
mOny. The defendant asked the court 10 in
struct the jury even if they found the notice of
July 18th Withdrawn or waived, the notice of
Sci t6mber 10Th renewed it; that the plaintiff was
rot entitled to recover more than One-tifth OF
The net profits, and that in absence of proof she
was entitled TO nominal damages Only both of
which instructions were refused. Defendant
also excepted to part of the charge OF the
THE PLAINTIFF CLAIMS
ihat The contract between the plaintiff and the
defendant must control their respective rights
III the plaintiff failed to perform, il was in the
power OF defendant TO rescind the contract.
however imperfect the plaintiff may havo per-
formed her duties, so long as the defendant chose
10 accept her performance, he is bound to pay
Ier IN The manner stipulated. 1t y admitted
that after the notice OF July 18th, the plaintiff
and defendant continued their relations to this
contract as they previously existed, until the
~ lNar.I ~ 4
moved her from the hotel. The plaintiff offered
TO rebuff the notices by evidence tending to show
waiver Of the notice OF July 18th; and il was
purely question OF fact which was properly
leIt 10 The Jurors. The notice of September,
two months after, could not be a renewal OF
the first notice, nor is il a good notice operating
OF ltself TO terminate the contract at the ex-
plrauOn Of thirty days. Even if il was they
would not have expired until October 18th
and she was fOrcibly removed October 9TH
It was question tor the jury to determine from
all the evidence what the onefifth OF the profits
probably was. The evidence was conflicting as
to the amount of profits. Hence the court would
nave erred by taking that question from the
jury, ana lGstructing them as prayed by the de.
PENDANTS, that the plaintiff could only recover
nominal damages. 1t is true the burden of proof
was On the plaintiff She established the breach
OF the contract by the defendant; and showed
the books of the hotel were in the defendants
exclusive possession. She then had the only
source, other than general testimony, by which
ihe jury could ascertain with certainty the ex-
he could have rebutted the plaintiffs testimony
by producing these books, and doubtless would
have done 20 If they did not sustain her The
legal ard moral presumption are both strong
against him.
THE sLANDEE CASE.
ne SANDER case between the same parties in
which in the lower court plaintiff obtained
verdict for $1,000, was then argued the same
counsel appearing.
The case came up on motion for new trial on
bllls OF exceptions. Defendant (LvOn) sets ont in
IN - WIsf fhE alaw Il.
charges that defendant said of and concernin0
her II saw her in bed with Capt. Denty, and II
looked over the transCm light and saw Mrs
y fol!aId IN bed with Capt Denty'' on the 18th of
81 mDer, lSlh, and recites the evidence of
F. Martin, Mckenzie Wilson, &C Smith.
henTy leatman, and Il. NJ. CLAYTON Defend,
ant Ontred evidence As to her general reputation
Tor chastity, and plaintiff having offered rn-
butting evidence on this point as to her char
Tcter in Richmond, defendant asked her char
aet6r elsewhere and this evidence being ruIe5
out, an exception was noted.
i he defendant asked instructions that tba
Jury should lind for defendant. unless thew
-FOUR u mat the language used and the ianJuape
III me declaration Is substantially identical; ard
even II they believe that the words were spoken
falsely and maliciOusy, and without reasonable
ground, they can only allow damages for the in
jury done plaintiff by speaking the words in
question. These were refused.
The defendant claims that evidence of pIain-
ln reputation anywhere was admiS. lille: that
the court erred as to proof that would Sustain
ctCdi d'lOh; JhaL the motion in arrest of
Judgment must be sustained, for the words in
The declaration are not actionabIe To he ac-
tlohable they must impute some disreputabIe
offence, punishable in the secular
courts must be spoken OF, and tend to iniure a
person in his trade or occuration: irruufe some
offensive disease tending TO deprive him OF So
elety, or lave produced some special damage
THE PLAINTIFF CLAIMS
That the defendants question as to her cbarac-
ter in Richmond was asked on cross-eyamina-
tIIh, ana was evidence in chief for defence,
@hich ne mad closed, and the court, i'll the ex-
erclse OF his sound discretion over a cross-ey-
animation, refused 10 admit il. She also claims
that IN the second point of defendant directed
10 me courts instruction, he admits Zone or
Two OF the expressions testified TO sustain the
ayerments" IN the declaration, and he adds
= but the witness. as to these, were contra,
mcted.' If he means more than one witness
ceTe cOntradlcted, the record does not show the
lact IL he refers TO only one witness Martin
then he admits that the witness CLAYTON tes,
tuned to words which would entitle the plain
A. ~ ra Lever, ara was not contradicted.
AFTER referring to the testimony the plaintiff
CONTENDS that whether defendant said he looked
9ItI ILe ransom and saw her in bed with Can't
IL or accused her of being in bed with Capt
u. ne meant one and the same thing That II
II iOr the court to say whether or not the words
q geo are actlonabe. But il is for the Jury to
HhI me intent with which they were uttered,
and W whether the words spoken are applicants to
the plaintiff, and in this case the defendant did
not object to the testimony of Mr. CLAYTON
Shlch removes any possible doubt what disrep.
III
had committed All authorities agree that testi-
mony OF words of similar import to those charged
IN me declaration, spoken either before or after
Uhe bringing OF the suit, are admissible to show
ma zee. The motion in arrest OF iudgment
which alleges the words spoken are not action
able, Is next referred TO, and plaintitf cites
numerous cases under the laws of MarvIand
winch are in force here, and claims that In the
case at bar, the words charge an indictabIe
Ohense. and an offense involving degradation in
society, and moral turpitude and that the COM
mon law of the land gives the right of action.
1HE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS TODAY direct.
ed the contract clerk, Mr. W. f.. Motif TO make
a contract with Peter Mcnamara for setting
the remainder of curb and for grading the re,
seIvatlon OF Pennsylvania avenue east, between
5th and 9th streets. Also that G. w LinviIle 4,
20 be awarded the contract for extending the
3dStreet sewer to New York avenue The
Eoard OF Public Works have also directed Mr.
Mott TO prepare contracts with the folIowino-
named parties for furnishing having brick.
JOhn webster for 500, 600 at Sl2. 80 per thousand
al the kiln; George b. Smith for go 600 AT s12
per thousand at the kiln; VIM. H. West e BRO
Tor 10000 AT S12-50 per thousand: A. and n a
richards, 100000 at $3.50 per thousand AT the
kins IN accordance with bids. Also directed a
contract 10 be made with l.. :. Filbert for having
a ~ inch Scotch tile sewer, grading and payinS
win the Scharh pavement on III street. between
ISth and 18th street northwest and one with n
L. crawford q Co. 10 lay the Scrimshaw nave
ment on street, from its intersection with New