National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1875-05-14
THE MARKET STALLS.
Further Hearing in the Lancaster Case
Argument Of Counsel.

Further Hearing in the Lancaster Case
Argument Of Counsel.
Yesterday morning the case of the Washing
ton Market Company against Lancaster, one Of
the nineteen dealers against whom action is
brought, was again called up before Justice Rob
inson, and General Birney resumed his argument
for the plaintiff, which he began on Wednesday.
ssrily involved in this case, excepting the two re-
ferring respectively to the assessing and collect
ing rents and the selling Of choice Of stalls at
auction. The rates Of rent, he said, may be
changed according to the charter. The reguIs-
tiOns provide that the company may re-enter in
possession OF stalls on non-Payment Of rent or
plaintiff claimed that defendant had not fulfilled
these requirements. The bonus gives q choice Of
the bidder pays the rent. He cannot keep pos
session simply because
HE PAID HIS BONUS.
Mr.. Birney argued that the charter could not
be construed as prohibiting the company from
seQuent sales was therein specified. The lease
can be treated as personal property only during
fendant's Counsel, he said entirely ignored Tires
clauses in the charter-those providing for sub
seQuent Sales for length Of lease and for death of
tenant during the existence Of lease. Defendants
counsel hinged their argument on the section
stating that tenant may keep possession SO long
as he chooses to occupy Il for his own business
which modify and explain It, by limiting the term
Of occupancy He argued at length on the land
lord. anG-tenant act. He considered the attempt
to make the company complete q front building
an Intentional blow at the prosperity Of the COM
pany. The defendant claims that
THE CONTRACT IN NOT GOOD,
but they still persist in holding property under
il. If there is no contract, the andlord-andten-
ant act provides for the case, and the property
must be given up 10 the company. He explained
at length the alleged invaliditY Of the contract,
arising out Of the vacancy of two Of the three off,
ces Of trustees caused by the change in the form
Of the District government; and after stating that
Mr.. Bradley would close the case for the plain
tiff, gave way to Mr.. Elliott
FOR THE DEFENSE.
Nr Elliott quoted Judge Wylies decision in
the Hoffman case last summer, maintaining the
righ Of stallkeepers to hold purchased stalls so
long as they occupied them for their own business
and paid the rent. Lancaster stands ready TO pay
his rent, but being informed that rent under the
old purchase would not be received, he did not
pay. He claimed that the company were not the
owners Of the property, as 1t had originally been
set apart and designed for a public market and
no corporation could shut out the public from its
use.
The original bill Of 1870 empowered the trustees
to fX the rent, and that was the rent that the
company was permitted to assess and collect by
the charter. He reviewed the points brought up
by the plaintiff g counsel at length, and reclted
several cases in support OF his argument.
At O'Clock the case was adjourned, and Mr.
Elliott will resume his argument to-day at noon.