The times., 1899-06-07
|DEClSI0NS OF THE
COURT OF APPEALS
Commissioners Have Author
ity to Reassess Property.
Their Right Under Act of Congress
of April q, 1896, Confirmed.
Opinion Handed Down in the CeIe-
brated Divorce Case of Hitch
cock Against Hitchcock.

The Court of Appeals of the District
of Columbia met yesterday, after a recess
of several weeks. a recess was taken
again till Thursday. Opinions were hand
ed down in eleven cases.
The matter of greatest Importance to
the general public was the conclusion
reached in the case of the District against
James T. Wormley, which involved the
question of the right of the Commission
ers to reassess property under the act
of Congress of April "a, 1896. The judg-
ment of the lower court was that the
Commissioners did not have this right.
The Court of Appeals, however, reversed
this decision yesterday The decision will
affect hundreds OF other cases of the
same nature which are pending both in
the Supreme Court of the District and
the Court of Appeals of the District
In the case of Emeline G. Hitchcock
appellant, against Carlos A. Hitchcock
the appellee, for divorce, the decision of
the lower court was affirmed.
While this case is one of recent record
in the divorce courts OF the District, hay
ing been filed January "a. 1898, it has at
tracted considerable public notice. The
case was also once before the courts of
Vermont
The history of the case in brief follows:
The husband Carlos A. Hitchcock. is sew
enty years old, while his former wife is
only thirty-nine years old. They became
acquainted through the medium of a mat
rimonal agency and were married at Sara
tcga Springs. n. Y in 1898. After their
marriage they lived together in Vermont
and in this city; in March, 1894, after an
alteration in which the husband accused
the wife of unfaithfulness she left his
home, and did not return till December
OF the same year. She then filed suit
for maintenance against her husband in
the courts of Rutland, Vt, charging him
with personal violence and false accusa-
| tions OF adultery.
In 1896 Hitchcock filed a bill for divorce
from his wife in the District courts. and
among other allegations declared that at
the time he was married to the defendant
! he believed her to have once been the
| wife of a man named White He then
filed supplemental bill charging her with
adultery. Mrs. Hitchcock then had her
! proceedings, which were still pending be-
fore the Vermont courts dimissed and filed
an answer and cross-bill for divorce in
! the District courts.
In 1887 these proceedings were dismiss
ed by the Supreme Court of the District
| and again in the following year the hus-
band commenced suit for divorce. After
a hearing his petition was granted and
his wife took an appeal to the Court of
Appeals for the District, which yesterday
| affirmed the decision of the lower court
In the case of Philip H. Fitzhugh
against his wife, Mary T. Fitzhugh. also
| for divorce, the decree of the lower court
granting the petition was affirmed These
proceedings were begun in the Supreme
Court of the District in April. 1898.
In the matter of the application for
patent of Samuel E. Mower, the opinion
of Chief Justice Alvey affirms the decision
of the Commissioner of Patents.
In the case of Nails Christensen against
Henry F. Noyes the decision of the COM
missioner OF Patents is reversed in an
opinion by Chief Justice Alvey.
In the case of Thomas ]. Griffin against
Magnus Swenson, the decision of the Com
missioner of Patents is affirmed, and the
priority of invention is awarded to Sven
son. The opinion is by Justice Morris.
In the case of Henry De Wallace
against Walter A. Scott and others. the
decision OF the Commissioner of Patents
is reversed by Justice Shepard, and
awards the priority of invention to De
Wallace