The times., 1898-02-10

The court OF appeals delivered an
opinion yesterday with regard to an in
depreciation of the liquor law that will
be of great interest to the barkeepers,
the Anti-Saloon League, the police
court. and the excise board. besides the
public in general A saloon man is not
of necessity violating the law because
he is found in his bar on Sunday, says
the court.
The case was that of Michael /. Han
nan against the District of Columbia.
Hannah was arrested and fined $50 in
the police court for having his barroom
/ open on Sunday, october "a, 1891 The
proof was that two police officers saw
two men enter the front door of the
bar at II o'clock that night, and on
making an investigation Immediately
found the door between the bar and
the remainder of the house open. Mr..
Hannan and his barkeeper We're found
in the house.
Mr.. Hannah did not deny any of this.
He and his barkcepcr JesJined that
they lived in the house. that they had
been away all day, and We're simply
returning home for the night The
back door of the house was bolted on
the inside and was inconvenient.
The police court judge instructed the
jury that if il found that Hannah had
entered his bar in the manner proven
1t should find him guilty.
Justice Alvey rendered the opinion of
the court Of appeals. He says that the
police court judge was manifestly in
error.
The fact that there was no other
way by which the inmates, the parties
living ana residing in the house, could
get in or out. except through the front
door of the room in which the bar was
located, requires such reasonable con-
srucuon as viii enable the parties to
exercise the ordinary privileges of
householders, and the mere opening the
door does not constitute within the
meaning of the statute a failure to keep
the barrooin closed
The court remands the case for
judgment of acquittal, or the quashing
of the information.
Several other opinions were rendered.
IL the case Of the Washington and
Georgetown Railroad Company against
John T. Hickey the court sustained
the decision of the court below in favor
of Mr. Hickey. Mr.. Hickey brought
suit against the railroad and also
against the Baltimore and Potomac
road for damages for an injury To his
wife, sustained by her-in jumping from
the street railway car on the approach
OF the Baltimore and Potomac train.
The jury found in favor Of the Balti-
more and Potomac, but against the
Washington and Georgetown line.
a decision of Justice of the Peace
Church is very seriously questioned,
and his motives called in question in
an opinion delivered by Chief Justice
Alvey. The case is that of the Fidelity
and Deposit Company against Samuel
l.. Beck. an appeal from an order of
Justice Cox quashing a writ of GER
tiorari issued to Justice Church upon
the alleged ground that the justice had
proceeded without jurisdiction, and in
total disregard OF right in the matter
before him. The court of appeals up
holds Justice Cox in ouashing the writ
for the reason that Justice of the Peace
Church had jurisdiction in the matter.
1t says. however: But whether that
jurisdiction was judiciOus,y and impair
TALLY exercised is a different question"
II is alleged by the company that in
the case before Mr.. Church he refused
to accept or consider the defense Of
fered, but excluded it entirely in rem
dering his verdict. He also refused to
another justice of the peace. The court
says: Sharp and technical points in
procedure before justices of the peace
are not TO be commended, and wher-
ever ii is apparent that they have been
resorted TO as a means To accomplish
an end they always tend TO excite sus-
picion of the want of fairness of the
result attained"
It says that if the facts are as they
are stated by the company, Justice
Church has acted arbitrarily and with
wilful perversity to keep the case for
himself, and 10 defeat the right of the
company.
The court does not attempt to decide
this matter, however. 1t advises the
company that. although the writ of GER
tiorari was rightly quashed. Justice
Church may be reached and the case
taken out of his hands by other pro-
ceedings.
In the suit of Nina Dumas against
the Northwestern National Insurance
Company to recover 81, 500 on an insur-
ance policy on the furniture at No. 1880
c street northwest. which was burned
some time ago. the judgment of the
court below against the plaintiff was
approved. Miss Dumas, in taking out
the policy swore- that she was the
owner of the furniture, but the COM
pany proved that she had paid for only
a part of it, and. the remainder was
covered with a chattel mortgage.
THE DISTRICT IN COMMITTEE.