Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-12-12
AN IMPORTANT DECISION.
1t is the Type Of Number of Claims
Against the District.
Reasoning of the Court of Appeals In
Reaching Conclusion Reversing
the Former Judgment.

the Former Judgment.
The case Of Edwin N. Gray agt. District
of Columbia, recently decided, as men,
toned in The Star at the time, by the
Court Of Appeals. is one Of unusual interest
to the people of the District BY the court $
decision the judgment of $S,6949I, which
Gray had secured against the District, was
reversed. and the case remanded to the
court below, with direction to the trial
court to grant a new trial.
Mr.. Gray, foundryman and machinist
engaged IN business on Maine avenue
between Sd and 1-2 streets in this
city, sued the District to recover damages
for loss and injury alleged to have been
sustained by him on the first days of July
and August, 1889. in consequence of filthy
water backing up from the public sewers
into and upon his premises, damaging his
engines, machinery patterns, &c. The plain
tin Mr.. Gray, alleged that the flooding COM
planned of was due to the fact that the pub
Tic sewers In the vicinity of his shops were
negligently allowed to become choked up
and obstructed by accumulate of sand,
filth and gravel.
Inc District. on the other hand, claimed
that the damage done Mr.. Gray was not
due to any obstruction in the sewers, but
was the result of sudden and extraordinary
rain storms. combined with tide water,
which taxed Tiber sewer beyond its ca
pacity, thereby causing the water to back
up out OF the Maine avenue tributary sewer
Into and upon the plaintiffs premises.
testimony tending to support the allega-
tons or each side was respectively given,
granting Mr.. Gray damages against the
District to the amount Of $S,69494.
The Districts Appeal.
Thereupon the District appealed to the
Court in General Term, and, under the
operations Of the act creating the Court
Of Appeals the case came before the latter
court. Judge Montgomery presided at the
trial OF the case in the court below, and to
his action In granting and refusing several
instructions to the jury the District ex-
cepted and based its appeal upon such ac-
ton of the trial judge. The decision Of the
Court of Appeals written by Mr. Justice
Morris, recites at length the history of the
case, and declares that two of the instruc-
tons were properly refused because they
restricted the right of recovery to the
flood of July 1, 1885, when the claim of the
plaintiff was for damages from both that
flood and the one OF August /, 1889.
While, says the court, 1.-The defense
struggled resolutely to disprove the exist
ence of any obstruction in the sewers at
the time of the storms, it's main contention
was that the disaster was a proyidential
visitation. or act of God against which
the defendant could not have guarded by
the exercise of any ordinary prudence and
care; and there was testimony strongly
tendlng to support this theory. 1t is con-
eeded that the rainfall was an extraor-
oinary and most unusual one; and it is ap-
parent also that 1t came about the time of
nigh tide, when 1t was most liable to cause
an overflow" Therefore. the court declares
that Judge Montgomery erred in refusing
ad nv ha
trict, TO that effect, unless the Judge cover
ed that matter at some point in his charge
No Case and Cannot Recover.
1T is very true" says Mr. Justice Morris,
In announcing the decision of the court.
that IN one part of his charge the Judge
says: If this injury was caused by the
FAULTY construction of the sewer, or by it's
want or capacity, or was caused in any
other way in the world except by the sewer
being obstructed. the plaintiff has got no
case and cannot recover And it might be
assumed that this very general and sweep
Ing expression, or was caused in any way
In the world except by the sewer being oh
structed,' is sufficient to cover the case of
a providential visitation or any other pos
s y, case. AND SO probably In one case 1t
Is But vague generalities addressed to a
Jury cannot supply the place of specific in
structions. The very purpose of instruc-
tons Is to direct the attention Of the tury
parties and to remove the subject of con-
troversy from the domain Of vague general
lty."
The opinion concludes by declaring that
while the trial Judge was not bound to give |
the instructions requested by the District |
In their precise terms, a Judge should, |
where The prayer is sound in law and APP |
plicable to the testimony. instruct the Jury |
In some sufficient form specifically and not
by vague generalities. upon the precise |
point to which the instruction is directed. |
II 1t be a material matter Not to do so. |
the court says. Is error, and it was not done
In the case at bar. Several other questions
were raised by the record in the case which |
the court did not deem necessary to de- |
termine, but for the reasons given in the |
opinion the judgment below is reversed and |
the case remanded with instructions to set |
aside the verdict and grant new trial.
Other Claims Affected.
The great Importance of the decision In
this case arises from the fact that the case |
IS but one of thirty-one similar suits against
the District now on the dockets of the |
courts, in which the damages claimed ag-
yTegate 100000, and by some the ruling of |
the Court Of Appeals virtually means an |
end Of all Of them. |