Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1891-03-20
THE IE DRour FENCE.
The Question of Capitalization Argued BEFORE
the Court On General Term.

The Question of Capitalization Argued Before
the Court On General Term.
In compliance with an arrangement made
Yesterday Chief Justice Bingham aud Judges
Coz and Montgomery sat in General Term 10
day 10 hear the case of FAirman against the
District et a.. (the lie Droit Park fence easel.
Nr. 4 s. Worthington Tor the complainant.
Mr. Hszleton for the District and Me-srs. VIM.
Birney and ID. W. Classic for the defendants
Mr.. Worthington stated that the case had
been heard by Judge Bradley. who made an in
junction and directed that those who tore down
the fence restore il within acer;ain time which
expired yesterday. and the other eide claim
the light % appeal. He claimed that this court
had not jurisdiction.
Mr.. Brney said he preferred that ths mat
tiers remain IN statu quo until the whole case
could be heard on its merits and ne was not
prepared 20 SO on this morning.
Mr.. worthington The court had enioined
the destruction OF the fence and vet the Com
missioners had DESTROYED IL.
Mr.. Hazelton denied this and said the police
were present to prevent a riot.
Mr.. Worthing'on WHY did thew not inter
fere when the fence was being destroyed. He
bad the order Of the Commissioners directing
the removal.
Mr.. Classic said that he represented Mes-rs.
Best Schmidt and johnson. who. when the
fence Was up. were IN a pocket with only one
mode NJ egress 60 the CITY and that through
Irimbe street and that the complainant was
not specially interested in the fence. for Ia.
property was not near il.
The court suggested that they would hear
,he counsel on the question " Jurisdiction, and
Mr.. Hazleton opened
Gen. hrney cited number of authorities
and claimed that the order practically disposed
OF the case, that II Il was carried into effect
the public, until the final hearing. would be
deprived Of the of the street.
Mr.. Northington. for the complainant, con-
tended that the order made below wac not an
appeslahle one. II they wished a speedy term
inatiUn he would be willing 20 try the case ne 1t
week. He then cited authorities.
Gen. Birney closed the argument for the de-
PENDANTS. urging that the order should be sus-
pended.
rHE CASE To BE HEARD MONDAY.
Al Ills O'Clock the chief justice aud Judge
Montgomery resumed the bench aud the former
announced that they had consulted on the mo-
ton.
The questions were of the first importance
whether an interlOcutory order is applicable
and whether I'm this case there should be order
suspendinc the execution Of the order. The
| decision would be a precedent They should
exercise great care in deciding whether an
order granting an injunction is applicable
There may be some question ~ 60 whether
| the court has the power 90 suspend the eNecu-
ton OF the order pending final hearing. aud
! this they were tot now prepared 10 decide.
| They had come % the conclusion far as this
case was concerned. for n was an important
| one. involving the question Of the ownership OF
the street. on which some Of the public money
| had been expended and contracts we're pending
for the improvement OF others dependant 90
the disposition OF tins question-to give an early
hearing and disposition.
They would assign the case for Monday and
would suggest to the parties that the matter
stand AZ at present