Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1879-02-04
The Cases OF Strong Against the
District.


The Cases OF strong Against the
District.
JUDGE HUMPHREYS RULINGS IN REVIEW
Ttday I'm the Court in General Term, the
case Of samuel Strong agt. the District OF Co
lumbia, which become somewhat noted last
summer by reason of the rulings of Judge
Humphreys, who insisted On the parties pro-
ceedfng with the trial, was heard by the
Court in General Term-MeSsrS. Benz. f. Bur-
ler Matt. II: Carpenter and VIM. A. Cook. for
for defendant. The piaintif ' brought suits on
several contracts, made with him by the late
board Of public works, for doing various parts
OF public works in the District, claiming about
$4,000. The case was, by order OF the court.
sent to special auditor. On the coming in Of
the report each party took exceptions. The
ON the 18th OF July, 1873 and at the request OF
defer dant, continued to the 10th of September
That day, on report that juror was detained
by sickness in his family, the court excused
him. and next day 1t discharged another
spohte. These places were filled by order of the
count. and the jury sworn, the defendant de-
Ginning to take any part in this changeof jury.
Oh hearing the motion to dismiss the plaintiffs
exceptions, the court sustained it in part, which
struck out the most of the plaintiffs case. II
also refused to permit him to amend them II
then Overruled the PLAINTIFFS motion to with
draw and continue, although the defendant
agreed to the motion. subsequently 1t set aside
its order sustaining said motion in part. and
allowed the amendment, and overruled the de-
fenO ants motion to continue, made in conSe-
forth In the affidavits OF the defendants attor-
neys, the counsel prepared, and with the par
ties signed the stipulation to set aside any order
or Judgment which the court might make in
the Gas e, II 1t should disallOw the above appca-
tion OF the plaintiff to continue the case and
compel the trial to proceed. This stipulation
was called for and read; the court ordered It to
be 1led nned the counsel and Commissioners,
and ordered the trial to proceed. Thereup IN
one OF the plaintiffs counsel and the att,r-
neys for the defendant withdrew from the trial.
nj fore n
verdict for the plaintiff of over $4,000 The
only action pending said further proceeding,
taken by the attorneys for the defendant in
court, was to except TO the charge of the court
to the jury; and submit motions for new trial
and in arrest.
JUDGE HUMPHREYS CHARGED WITH INTOS!CA-
TION.
Among the papers filed in the case Is an aft
davit OF Mr.. Francis Miller to the effect that
during the latter part Of the session of Septem-
DER nth, the presiding justice Humphreys was
OBVIOUSLY and patiently intoxicated. So appa-
rent was this, that after short consultation if
was determined by counsel on both sides that
under no circumstances would they submit the
case to trial before him; that he was absent
from the session of the court on the 18th and,
on his return to the city Oh the 18TH Mr. Riddle
informed him that he had agreed with the
counsel for plaintiff to have a conference with
Justices Wyli and Macarthur, bnt that Judge
Wylle was sick. .At the appointed time Mr..
Riddle and met MeSSrS. TOtten and Cook in
the consultation room and stated our embar-
easements to Judge Mae Arthur We all con-
CURED in the intoXicatiOn Of Judge Humph-
1eys. and Mr.. Cook gave an account OF an in
terview he had had with him On the 18th He
said lie had met him at DubantS restaurant
where they were taking their lunch; that The
subject OF the Strong case had been introduced
by the judge, and he had expressed hi,
hrm intention to insist on the trial at that
that if he did try the case he had one suggestion
to make to him. Upon the Judge asking him
what it was, he replied s. that he Should abstain
entirely from the use OF Intoxicating liquors
during the trial." That the Judge, 10 reply,
said lie had no doubt his Cook 81 motive was
kind In saying what he had. but that his rulings
had all been right and could not be disturbed
Air. COOK replied, "HOWeyer that may be, il is
certain that case could not be tried by Judge
whose mind was inamed and excited by drink
with as much dignity Or propriety as by one
whose mind was in its proper and natural con-
dtion." After full consultation it was unani-
mouSly determined that on Monday 16tn of
september, the plaintiff should ask leave to
that the defendant should Join in the request:
and that stipulation should be prepared and
signed by both Sides agreeing that whatever
action should be taken by the court should be
by consent, set aside at the next term OF court
This stipulation was prepared by Mr. Totten as
was informed, and signed by the partie, and
their counsel, except myself, who was abSeat
when 1t was signed"
PROCEEDINGS TO-DAY
Gen Butler, on the opening Of the court this
morning, moved that under the rules the de-
motions, one or the other, and he moved to
strike out all motions filed prior to the signing
OF the bill OF exceptions, and all statements In
regard to the conduct OF the Judge On the lat
ter point he said he would never stand before a
court and comment on the conduct Of one of its
members unless he was compelled to do SO.
There was time and place for such charges to
be made, and TO the proper tribunal should
these charges be made, not here.
The Chief Justice directed the argument to
proceed In the ordinary way.
ND
MIR. Miller proceeded with the argument on the
molten to set aside the Judgment on the ground
or fraud The judgment was for sl33 O0l - and
costs, and the grounds OF this motion are thar
at the hearing before the auditor and on The
trial the plaintln claimed to be paid for his
work ''1n lawful money OF the United State.,"
anu instead OF being so paid, he received cert1i-
Gates which he was compelled to sell at large
discount; that he received them under protest,
IesefV1ng TO himself the right to collect the dit
terence between the face value and the market
value, and that there was due him on account
OF said loss $4,000. That the court in Charging
the jury told them plaintiff was entitled to re-
cover this difference il he had filed such protest:
Inat lhe plalntiit sWore the paper produced was
a true copy, and the defendant claims that this
paper was not q true copy, but one which had
been materially altered.
MI. Miller, in commenting on this point re-
marked that the important words as to "laWfu,
money" had been inserted, and he produced a
paper In which the protest seems to be as
which he claimed was true one.
M. COOK called attention to the endofy enent
,d Inc BOARD on the paper; that he he intended
10 noi0 tnefn responsible for the full amount
, Mr. Miller, In referring to the stipulation, said
there was no contempt.
Mr.. Carpenter said that they had been guilty
OF contempt, for they had been fined
MI. Miller remarked that the fines had been
RENTED. ~
:. Judge Humphreys said that that was so. but
Was a1ter an apology had been made
MT Riddle denied that there had been am
apology 01ered. or anything which could h.
construed into one; nor would any be offered ~
Inc nearing was in progress when our report
closed.
Amusements. &c.
NATIONAL THEATER.-The opening NIGHT of