The times., 1899-11-09
The COURT OF APPEALS
The Police Court Reversed on a
Liquor Case Decision.
Ernest Loemer Did Not Know That
AivoFd Queen Was 81 Minor-Con-
ed-JOhn Walters viii Not Have to
Pay AIimOny-Thc District Loses.

Several opinions were handed down yes
terday in the Court OF Appeals for the Dis
trict. The most important of these, per
haps, was that in reference 10 the sale of
liquor to minors The matter was brought
to the attention of the court in the case
of the United States against Ernest I.oeff-
Ter, who was convicted in the Police Court
OF selling liquor to Alvord Queen. an al
legged minor. The case was taken to the
upper court by Messrs. Edwin Forrest and
Joseph ShillingtOn, attorneys for the ap-
pellant, and the argument on the question
was heard some time ago.
After reviewing the case the Court of
Appeals, in an opinion delivered by Chief
Justice Alvey, reversed the judgment of
the Police Court. The court held that be
fore a conviction would be warranted it
should be plainly demonstrated that the
seller was aware of the fact that the pur-
chaser was in fact a minor.
In the case Of Johanna Walters against
her former husband, John Walters, 10
collect 1927 claimed to be due as alimony
under an order Of the Supreme Court Of
the District the opinion of the court de-
livered by Judge Morris affirmed the Judg-
ment of the lower court denying the claim
of the plaintiff. In March, 1888. Mrs. Wal
ters filed suit for divorce against her hus-
band and the court allowed her alimony in
the sum Of Sl00 month pendente lite.
This amount was afteTward increased 10
5000 a month. Her husband. John Walters,
however. not only made answer to her pc
titiOn for divorce, but also filed cross
bill for divorce. After a hearing Of the
matter the complanant's petition for di-
yOTce was dismissed and the respondent
was granted a divorce upon his cross bill.
In the mean time Walters kept on paying
alimony until February. 1898. when he
refused to pay more. At that time the
amount claimed to be due by Mrs. Walters
was 1927. The court in dispOsing of the
matter, regards the dismissal OF the petit
tion Of the complainant and the granting
of the petition of the respondent in which
he asked for divorce upon statutory
grounds as a discharge Of the obligation
Of the defendant in the original proceed
/ ings to pay further alimony.
In the case of Hosea B. MOulton against
the District for SO, 600 for personal in
juries the judgment OF the lower court was
also affirmed. ME Moulton was seriously
I injured in a runaway accident on Thanks
giving Day, 1896. and claimed that the
horse he was driving was frightened by a
steam roller, which was left in Park Street
At the trial in the lower court the jury
which heard the testimony awarded Mr..
Moulton S. 6450 damages.
In the case of Eleanor A II. MagrudeT
against George A. Armes and others, the
decision of the lower court was affirmed.
The case of HoyJ A. HoIton and Melvie
| Holton against the District for damages
/ for personal injuries alleged to have beer
sustained by the female plaintiff was re-
manded for new trial TO the lower court
The first matter entertained yesterday By
! the court was the argument for a new tria
! and arrest Of judgment in the case o
/ MaXimillian w Falk, who was convicted
1 in the Supreme Court of the District o
adultery and sentenced to six months i'm
prisonment in the peHttenJiary at Mounds
Vile w Va. The court took the matte
under advsemeut.