Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1873-10-09
The Demolition OF the Old Nothern
Market.

SUIT OF STALL HOLDERS AGAINST ALEXANDER
r. SHEPHERD.
- To-day, in the Supreme Court in General
Term, the case of Andrews Il Wade against
Aiensndsr H. shepherd was taken uP.Messrs,
Messrs- Cooke and E. L. stanton for defendant.
This case arises out of the destruction of the old
Northern Liberty market in September. 1872.
Plaintiffs at that time were possessed of eight
stalls in the market, and they charge that
on the fourth of September, 1872, the de-
without right and demolished the same, for
which they claim damages for $4,000; the
defendant filed to the declaration pleas
action because the market was on an open space
formed by the junction Of Massachusetts and
New York avenues and X street, which was the
In temporary Occupancy Of the late City Of
Washington, and that by sufferance; and that
on or about that time Gen. Babcock, in charge
that at the time OF the alFe he'd trespass there
existed an act relating to market houses, which
conte mplated the removal of said market; and
rected the Board of Public Works, through the
defendant, to take charge of the matter of the
removal OF the market, The plaintiffs demur
to the second and third pleas, and the case was
certified from the Circuit Court.
The defendant makes the points that the
ground was only in the temporary occupancy
OF the city, and that the United States desired
its possession, and through its proper officer re-
quested the defendant to take possession of it
and remove the building, which involved the
whatever he did, acted for the United States
"the owner of the freehold, with the right of
entry" In this respect his act was the act of
the United States, or OF its proper officer, for its
supposed good. The District government hay-
ing provided for the termination of the North
ern Liberty market house. and for a temper ary
as well as permanent construction of one in
its place, at different location. e. on square
446-and committed the removal of the old and
the construction of the temporary market
houses to special commission, consisting of
the Governor and others, by whom the Board
OF Public Works was requested and authorized
TO take charge OF the removal; and in COM
piance with which request and authority as
the vice president of the board, acted, he is
not responsible in this action to the plaintiff
That the plaintiffs have not any just ground of
complaint. The act of the legislative assembly
of June 80, 1872. expressly provided for their
carrying on their business at the new tempo
rary market without charge, until the expira-
ton of their licenses, and the alleged trespass
was not committed until September 4. That
whatever was doDs by the defendant was done
in the execution of the laws Aforesaid, and in
virtue of the request and direction Of the said
Henry ID. Cooke, as aforesaid, and as a member
of said Board of Public Works, and not In his
individual capacity, and not otherwise. The
plaintiffs allege rightful occupation under an
unexpired license of said city of Washington,
and claim that the first plea of defendant is bad
for 1t does not show justification in law of the
alleged trespass. 1t does not pretend that the
"late" city of Washington had no right to give
such license, nor that their estate therein had
been lawfully determined. Itdoes not intimate
that any notice to quit had been given by the
United States to the said city of Washington or
the plaintiffs. 1t the city of Washington was
tenant "by the suffrance of the United States"
1t was entitled to thirty days notice to quit
The third plea attempts to justify under two
acts of the legislative assembly and an order
from the governor of the District of Columbia
This plea does not pretend that said acts have
been complied with, and is bad