Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-05-08
USE OF STREETS,
Several Decisions by the Court of
Appeals,

Appeals.
The Court Of Appeals yesterday after
noon, In the case of James Hunter against
the lexington and Soldiers Home Railroad
Company, decided that street railways are
no more entitled to the right of way on
the public thoroughfares than are per-
sons. Hunter in 1891, while driving a
wagon, was struck by one of the COM
pany's cars near 9TH street and Massa-
chusetts avenue. His leg was broken and
he sued the company, claiming $4,000
damages. A jury awarded him s., 800 dam
ages and that judgment the Court of Ap-
pealS reyerSeS, remanding the case for a
new trial. 1t is contended by the COM
pary that street railway has precedence
of right of way just a steam railway
has, and that persons passing in the stree.
should respect that right. In the court
below the judge instructed the jury that it
was the duty of the company to protect
its crossings by employing watchmen or
iagmen, but the Court of Appeals holds
that the speed on street railways being
limited to nine miles an hour the COM
panies are not obliged to use such extra
ordinary precautions, such precautions
being left to the discretion of the municipal
authorities, and that therefore the ques-
ton should not have been submitted for
Abe consideration of the jury.
In the case of George r. Tolman,
Treasury Department clerk, who was COM
mitted by Justice Hagner to Jail because
of his refusal or failure to pay his wife
alimony, the court holds that Tolman was
lawfully committed and dismisses his ap-
peal from the decision of Judge McComas.
refusing his release on a writ of habeas
corpus. The court holds that courts of
equity are so entitled to enforce their or
ders in such cases, and declares that it
would be futile to deprive them of such
power.
In the case of Leitch & Sons against
the Emergency Hospital to enforce the
mechanics lien, the court aftirms the judy
hala ha16 hot mat ial ra
not entitled to. hold mechanics liens. The
compliments sold material to parties en-
p4oyed by the hospital and the court holds
that in such a case the employing party
is not responsible
The judgment of the court below was
affirmed in the case of Peck and others
against Heurich and others, in which the
plaintiffs sought to eject the defendants
from property in sherwood and Rosedale,
the lower court holding that the proceed
ings were champertous.
The Judgment of the lower court was
also affirmed in the case of John H. and
George H. Taylor against the Baltimore
and Potomac Railroad Company. The
plaintiffs in the court below recovered
judgment of 5000 because of damages
upon the rental value of their property
at 131s street and Maryland avenue
through the occupancy by the road of
tracks near their property.
In the case of VIM. Galway, administrator
of the estate of the late William r. Galway,
the judgment of the court below was re-
verSed and the case renamed Tor another
trial The deceased was killed on the Balti-
more and Potomac railroad at the 18th
street crossing southeast, June IL, 1883, and
In the court below the estate recovered a
judgment of $1,000 against the road.
In another railroad case-that of Joseph
N. Webster against the Baltimore and Po-
tomac Railroad Company-the judgment Of
the court below in awarding $1,000 damages
was affirmed. The plaintiff was injured in
December, 1854. in an accident on Maryland
avenue near 9th street southeast.
In affirming the judgment of the court
below in the case of Sarah Harlow against
Ellie S. Carroll in which $4,000 damages
were asked because of alleged libelous mat
ter filed by the defendants counsel in an
other suit, rejecting upon the character OF
the plaintiff, the Court of Appeals says that
it would be a startling doctrine If a party
to a suit should be allowed to violate GRIM
inal law in a court of justice. Freedom of
speech, explained the court, does not fur
nish a defense for RIGHTEOUSNESS in ma
licious attacks. and for an officer of justice
to be guilty in such a matter may be the
worst form of wrong. The qualification of
private malice cannot be permitted, and
while much latitude should be allowed,
there should be some limit beyond which
litgants may not go with impunity. In the
court below the case was taken from the
jury because of doubt as to the identity CT
the person named in the answer, and the
objectionabl features of the answer were
ordered stricken out as irrelevant impert-
inent and scandalous.
In the case of the contest over the estate
of the late Maria Cole, in which the con-
testants prayed for writ Of mandamus to
compel Judge Bradley to sign their bill OF
exceptions. the petition for the mandamus
was denied.