The morning times., 1896-11-04
BY THE COURT OF APPEALS
Decisions Rendered in Several I'm
pOrtant Cases.
Married Woman's Property Rights
Involved In an Opinion
Handed Down.

The Court of appeals delivered yesterday
Afternoon declsioLs i'll several cases OF un-
| usual Importance.
In the case OF Mary j. Foertcb, appellant,
Justice Shepard confirmed the finding Of
tie District supreme court. The suit was
against Mrs. Fuertch, a married woman, and
Mr. julius Germuiller in the lower court
sought TO recover for services rendered for
the erection of a block Of houses on land
that was her separate property. 1t was
contcndcd that the common law rule that
husband and wife cannot be received us
witnesses for or against each other except
In suits between them or i'll criminal cases
where one Is prosecuted for injury to the
other, was abrogated by certain provisions
"l the revised statutes OF the Dist trct
In thls the court of appeals refused to
concur Justice Shepard also upheld the
instructions Of the lower court that 1T
was not necessary for Mrs. Fcertch TO say
| size would pay the plaintiff. IF she did
| not dissent to the contract made with her
| husband, the jury could infer it was made
with him as her agent. If She allowed
| her husband to borrow money on her
property to build thereon, the presumpti III
| Is he would he acting as her agent and 50
| made the contract with plaintiff and .ic-
| fendant would be bound thereby. If,
however, he was acting on his swn re-
upl Will COii-
| sent. II would not tie Inalu- Ln her
Justice Morris OF the court of appeals, de-
| cided the suit OF Richard l.. Elliott against
| the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Com
| pany, in which the latter took an appeal
| from decree of the lower jurisdiction
which awarded Elliott So 800 damages
Tor injuries received by him in the jersey
| yards IN this city. While coupling a car,
Elliott had his foot crushed. The railroad
| took exceptions and his Testimony rcpard
ing the use OF the Janney coupling pin
and its effect at the time claiming it was in
the nature of expert testimony.
In tins Judge Morris did not agree, hold
| ing that expert testimony was matter Of
| OPINION ana not Of personal kno wlcdcc of a
| particular case as in this instance The
| court or appeals also sustained the charp, In
the jury as given in the court below and
| affirmed the decision.
In the case OF James Evans, sued nv
Charles Humphreys before a Jus,ic. OF
the peace for recovery of certain real
estate, the court OF appeals yesterday
| affrmed the decision of the District
supreme court, 1t having been transferred
originally from the Justice of the peace
Humphreys Claimed to have been ouste,l
| by Evans, and after much technical dis.
pute judgment was rendered for Evans.
| On second trial verdict was given
In favor OF Humphreys Evans then ap
pealcd TO the court of appeals, but Justice
Morris sustained the Judgment as given
in the second trial and thereby Humphreys
secured the property.
Justice Shepard, in a decision rendered
yesterday, affirms the district courts
finding in the case of George W. Croplcy.
appellant, against Caroline yster and the
Farmers and Mechanics National Bank.
an intervening petitioner.