Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1890-06-09

waiting for With patience for many weeks
Judge Schoheld was the only absentee from
the bench.
NOTHING FoR THE CUNARD COMPANY.
Judge John Davis read the first decision
dismissing the petition of the Cunard steam
ship Coinpany for drawback on customs duties
paid on several cargoes of bituminous coal
shipped into this country from England for use
on Its ste eamers fuel. and stored in bonded
warehouses in Boston. The coal was afterward
reshipped out OF the country. but between tue
periods OF shipment an act was passed by Con-
Sress limiting the payment of drawbacks to
American vessels only. The court held that
importers must take risks on the change Of the
laws OF customs durug their shipments. and
that the limiting amendment barred the claim
THESE CATTLE DON'T ooUNr.
Judge Davis also read the opinion Of the
court in the claim of Z. J. Conard and twenty
others, generally known as the Loudoun
county cases. being claims for cattle
taken by Union soldiers during the famous
rad OF 1864 into Virginia under the order
OF Gen Sheridan designed to prevent
the encroachment of guerillas. vast amount
OF i've stock was taken and driven into corral
within the Union lines and afterward some we're
Killed and eaten by the army and some sold at
auction. IL was impossible TO separate the
TWO Classes ana the petition was dismissed on
account OF lack of jurisdiction.
THE FAMOUS AUSTIN CASE
JndgeWeldon read an extremely long verdict
In the famous Austin cotton claim. This case
has been up before the court for several years
having been referred TO il by Congress to de-
termlne whether or not Sterling l. Austin
the father OF the present claimants, was in
lact loyal to the government of the United
states at the time that his cotton was taken
from HIM. The court dismissed the case on
the ground of disloyalty but rendered an ex-
pianatorv decision of fact computing the
damages to which the claimants would
be entitled were they not barred by law. The
claimants heirs OF the decedcnt. are residents
OF this city, one of them. the administrator of
the estate. Miss Jane Austin. being employed
IN the State Department. She. IN company
with her attorney, Mr.. John FAY. was present
AT court this morning. Judge Weldon charac-
terlZed this case as a most extraordinary and
important one, more than 1000 printed pages
OF record having been the result of its hearings
ana over l50 witnesses having been examined
The record disclosed a wonderfully sharp con-
nict OF testimony throughout.
STORY OF THE CLAIM
The cotton was seized in Louisiana and
Texas, and, the claimants alleged. amounted to
1850 bales. The entire case rested on the
loyalty of Sterling T. Austin and whether. if
he was disioyal, the general amnesty of 1865
had removed his disabilities and made hm
loyal in fact The court, on the latter point
decided in the negative.
At the outbreak OF the war Austin lived in
Gsorgia, and. although believer in the Union
was compelled by force of circumstances and
the presence OF popular opinion around him to
exhibit a passive acquiescence in the rebellion
lie afterward moved TO louisiana, and there
engaged in tho cotton business was accented
by the citizens as a supporter of the confed-
eracy and attended antl-emancipation meet
ings. His ultimate sympathy with the south
was undoubted, and when the proclamation of
emancipation was issued he made every effort
to retain his slaves. Upon the arrival of
the Union army in the vicinity of his
plantation he fed with his family and aban-
doned all of his property. At one time he re-
sided In Shreveport, La, recognized as the
headquarters of the southern forces at that
time, and during that period often ordered ms
slaves to labor in aid of the con-
federate authorities in the construction
of gun boats. Section 1914. RS, declares
that the voluntary residence of a person IA a
dsloyal locality Is prima facie eyIde nee of dis
loyalty. The court therefore concluded that
IT had not been shown to its satisfaction that
Sterling I. Austin had been loyal to the United
States. But i'll view of the yolumnous evil
dence taken. it thought it well to give a
supplementary opinion as to the yalue
OF the property taken from the
decedent. On this point the testimony was al
most inextricably conflicting Ii had con-
cluded. after long investigation and computa-
tion, that the claimant would be entitled to the
full amount alleged. S59,2s7 if II were not for
the bars. This case will be appealed to the
Supreme Court.
FOR PLAsTERING THE PENSION BUILDING.
Judge Mott read the courts judgment in the
claim of Hughes against the United States
The claimant the contractor engaged in
plasterIn the wallis OF the new Pension Office
and the case was to determine the amount of
payment Judgment was in favor of plaintiff
III the sum of Sl,926.
JUDGMENT FOR MR. sMITHMEyFR
Judge Mott then delivered the opinion OF the
court in the celebrated Smithmeyer case.
rendering judgment for the plaintiffs for
$4,000. This case was for compensation for
services OF the plaintiffs. Smithmeyer and Pelz
of this city, as architects of the Congressional
Library Building. In 1873 they sub
mitted plans for that structure
10 the joint commission, which were accepted
and for which they were paid 81 800 For sew
eral years they were engaged ia the prepara-
tion of details and the examination of almost
innumerable other plans that were submitted
but received no compensation. Smithmyer
rope and studied various libraries and
afterward made report to the
commission. In 1886 he was appointed archi-
tect of the building at annual salary of
So,OUU, ana PelZ. his partner. was made chief
craftsman at $1,000 year. Smthmyer held
this position for two years, and Pelz is
still in the service. The court went upon
the theory that the claimants were en-
titled to recompense for the service rendered
during the period when the commission was
examining plans but the question was on the
basis of the recovery The plaintiffs alleged
right to recover on the total cost OF the build-
ing finally planned. which it is estimated
will be about S7.000.000. This would give |
them Sl75,0 600 as their fees as architects using
the ordinary rule OF % per cent
Judge Mott indicated by his remarks that |
he believed that the claimants should \
recover in a liberal measure, but that upon a |
vote being taken he had been overruled by a /
majority OF the court lie said that it was his |
opinion that the claimants fee should be cal /
culated upon the basis OF their original esti- |
mate Of the cost of the building, IS. $50, 900
which would give them about Sl35.000. The /
court decided. however, that inasmuch as the /
plaintiffs had finally accepted salaries in lieu |
of their regular fees at architects rates their |
compensation should be in the same measure |
as that compensation, and, counting the period |
of six years when they worked without rec
ompense at the rate of $4,000 year, the ag- |
gregate OF their joint salaries, judgment was /
rendered for S4s.0 .0V0. The case will be appealed |
to the Supreme Court
Judgment was rendered in favor of Geo.
Truesdeli Of this city for $1,000 for the loss of
the use OF a well incident to the construction of
the aqueduct tunnel. The court adjourned until |
Wednesday morning when a final adjourn ment