Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1876-10-03
LOCAL " VS.,
The visising niremeu.

> = f.a0rr
10 tne effect that the visitors were ohl,.,ss -,
settle their Individual hotel bills a. &c.,
having been promised thst their visit here
snouid oe iree OF expense aud yhat thex,
should contest for q large share n, So ICY ICY
money. Tie facts I'm the case are a. tolle-e
stated ON the authority OF an Influential
member OF the general committee: WI,
the idea OF extending an invitation 70 tba
teams wss inst origfusted. ~ was the inter :
lion OF the members OF the District lfie clr n
20 ss = large sum among the citizens O
imprsctcsole, however. aud sbsndoned a, a
the Invitation was extended 20 the lean
Ing thst they should receive 90 per can't 81
Major Fulton, 10 bis reply, gave then 20
understand that it was the intenti N OF fooSf
OF me teams 10 pay a visit % Washington
anyhow, and that they were pleased Al The
INVITATION, and would be glad 10 shoot AT
me, me nsllohs capital. The understanding,
the teams should receive 60 per cent of the
proceeds OF the contests. the general com
mitlee ~ per cen I. for defrRying advertising
Ollis shd Incidental expenses aud the re
maiI Ing % per cent should so u M. Hin
IcT the use OF the grounds. Tue raj road ARE
rom and 20 New York vss furnished by
Mslor FULTON, 50 that the only expenses 10
be Incurred by the visitors were the Arling-
Ton hotel bills. ard these, ~ Is said we're
covered by their share of Tie gate money.
Tue general COMMITTEES. however, are our
about - coo. So far from departing With in
feelings. The visitors were delighted with
their visit, and when they went away gave
cheer upon cheer Tor Washington city the
citizens OF Washington, snd the general
committee until they were cut OF hearing.
SUIT FOR sLANDER AGAINST A MINIS
Tkk.-MeSsrs. r. 4. b. sands and Henry
Wise Garrett have for Carrie l.. Lou1en
entered suit against Joseph Thompson
for Islander. She states thai she was IN be-
cemoer last a member In good standing OF
The African Methodist Episcopal Union
betLel church, OF which defendant was aud
tending 10 defame and injure her, charged
ner win grossly i'm moral conduct. snd feel
ing aggrieved aud seeking within the church
20 nave her good name viDdlcated and 70 be
orougnt 10 confront her slsnderers sue pre-
Ierred charges against them and submitted
Inem 10 The pastor 1.-THE defsndantl, out he
SSlsfeesrued his duty, and wilfully and ma
Iclously intending 10 injure her and 20 de-
lest her efforts, totally disregsrded the
charges preferred by her, aud Summoned her
20 appear and answer certain frivolous
charges preferred by one OF plaintiffs slam
oerers lMsry r. GoOienl, IN effect charging
plaintin with preferrlng the charges. thaf
when she appeared ready with her witnesses
10 answer Tie charges, the defendant, VIII
July intending Ia do her wrong and harraSs
her, postponed the trial until Decem Der 22f.
when she was again present with witnesses,
spa without evidence and In gross violation
OF TIE rules OF the church the defendant pro-
cured an Irregular finding Of guilty, aud snb-
sequently Ton the "a of January lastl he
with intent 10 irJure her In her good name,
yurlng and intending 10 iDjure her, causing
me fouI and malicious ISLANDERS 20 be be-
lleved, ty reason OF which premises she has
been injured, and she claims s5, 900 damages
THE TAX CERTIFICATE CAsEs-Tn the
Court In General Term, Judges Cartier.
Wyne, Humphreys and Macarthur, TO day
Inc case OF Columbus Alexander against the
District OF Column bia, aud First National
Bank or New 1Ork, was taken up- Messrs
J. j. stewart for complainant, Mr. Stanton
Ior the District and Mr.. Cook for the han r.
ibis 10 q Bill In equity TO eDjoin the sale OF
part OF lot 2, square 2s6, on New York ave
nue., 10 pay certificate OF Indebtedness for
special improvements. The complainant
alleges that the certificate was Illegally
ISSUED. and Is no lien on the property; that
the charge per front foot is excessive and
frsudu lent, being based on the average OF
pretend cost from 9th 20 18th streets,
which Is unreliable and greatly ia excess of
lhe appropriation. That - SOl ~ was added
without authority OF law and 5000 10 for
unoolng and doing the wor over again; that
the contract was 80 cents per foot but 40
cents was charged; that the aggregate cost
Las been assessed and collected from the u
81 that over 30 feet was exempted for church
property; that the system OF assess ment Was
not In accordance with law, and the mode OF
collection is against law.
The District and bank deny the allegations
generally, and aver that the issuing OF said
certlncstes was regular, ami they were pro-
ceeding according 10 law when the bill was