Saint Mary's beacon., 1876-11-16

Aaditor. unplzo,ler and Tressuref e
tke Dixfriet. By this and similar opess
dir I'D &Ee p 1lEculties =
A. - =. ~ = ezpee-
ted = ofspi pr na q The
Dislsi - Spring q 1871 = hay-
ing ~ p His II Gtcos Coz
sequents - snli< fotedZ This again
Vas IT, nwerihw he District Commits
stones ? 6efd of Audit construing
the neW 16w a. au1hnri1ing an unlimi-
ted issue of Distritt 3.65 bonds. In
February, 1876, the second harvest was
stopped ~ Congress prohibiting further
issues under heavy penalties, and Shep-
herd has smarted from the consequences
of this legislation ever since. The oc-
espancy 6 his property On Pennsylvania
avenue By the Pension Bureau last Fall
in defiance Of law was an imperative
necessity for the finances Of Shepherd,
and the same may be said OF Mulletfs
reappointment BY Secretary Morrill,.
Since ne fact of Shepherds embar-
rassment has been made known i Is
openly asserted that bis troubles were
hastened ID consequence Of his having
bet largely on various States going Re-
publicau: Had returns been favorable
to Hayes il is thought he would have
been able 10 hold out while longer
The cry 6y his Ring friends that he has
done 10 mVsh for the District is raised.
and ther - that mercy be extended
him. 8 Uepherd has built in oil during
the last six years about one hundred and
fifty nine houses in Washington, and not
fifteen hundred az claimed. Most Of
them are cheap tenement houses, which
were disposed of to contractors in the
bright days of the Ring government a,
double the prices they were worth. II
is openly stated that his property will
not cover his liabilities, and the fact Of
bis coming out as he has and announ-
cling his condition shows that his case is
desperate. In Washington there is but
little sympathy manifested for him, and
the poorer class look upon his downfall
as a punishment for the manner in
which he brought them down to power
ty by his tyranny, which compelled
them to sell their little homes.
By Shepherds downfall others will
suffer, and many Of the citizens of Wash
ington who were considered solid are
already showing signs of weakness,
brought about by the illegal debts con-
tracted by him. A few days since w.
J. Murtagh gave Shepherd an order on
the District Commissioners for $4,000
which they refused to honor as other
persons had prior claims on this money.
This was done by Murtagh to keep
Shepherd afoat until after the election.
1t is asserted on good authority that
Shepherd fears proceedings which have
been openly threatened by certain con-
tractors, who allege that he borrowed
money of them, to be paid in contracts.
One contractor lately threatened suit
for nearly $4,000 in District bonds,
which Shepherd ostensibly borrowed,
but which were really the dividend he
claimed from profits on contracts given
by Shepherd as Vice-Pre>ident Of the
Board OF Public Works. The course he
is now pursuing will, however, not stop
proceedings in bankruptcy unless the
courts are as subservient as they were
in the case of the creditors Jay Cooke
and Co. against that firm.
INTERESTING Insurance CAsE.-In
the United States Circuit Court OF Bal
.;more On Saturday Judge Giles deci-
ded fire insurance case, in which
there are some interesting points
Rayfeld, Rigg,n s. Co., oyster packers,
effected insurance in the Farmers Mu-
tual fire insurance company, Of Della
ware, for $4,000 on a frame oyster
packinghouse in Cr,sfeld, Md. One
of the conditions OF the policy was that
the insured should comply with the by
laws of the company, requiring thatifthe
assured had a policy in any other COM
pany on the same property, he should
so state in his application; and if he eff
feeted any additional insurance in other
companies, it should be made known to
the insuring company, and its assent
thereto be endorsed on the policy
Plaintiffs subsequently effected insur-
ance on the same property in the Phe-
nix and in the Pennsylvania fire insur-
ance companies, and sent notice Of the
fact to the secretary of the defendant,
but received no answer.
Soon after the property insured was
destroyed by fire. On application be-
ing made defendant refused to pay the
amount of the policy, claiming that it
had been Cancelled by the act of plain
..H - .~Lso.,.r. o.lJ.t;o,.I :,-,..~...
without consent. Archibald Stirling,
Jr., and George II. Chandler, for de-
fendant, argued that the cancellation
took effect Immediately on the addi-
tionai insurance, and that no notice was
requisite of the refusal of the company
TO endorse on the policy. John II.
Handy, for plaintiff. urged that the pol
icy was only voidable, aud no, .oided
by the additional insurance: that, hav-
ing giving notice of the additional in
surance, plaintiff had fully complied
with the condition of the policy, and
that then il was al the option Of the
company to cancel the policy or to al
low il to remain in force, Of W hi, h elec-
tion the defendant was bound to give
notice to the plaintiffs; that having failed
to give the notice until after the fire had
occurred, il was precluded or estopped
from availingitsel of the provisions Of
the bylaw. and that the policy con-
t,nued in force. Judge Giles decided
that the policy was void ipso .taefo by
the act Of plaintiffs in obtaining addi-
tional insurance, and that cancellation
was not necessary Judgment was