The times., 1899-11-07
THE DISTRICT NOT LIABLE.

Damage Suit of Catherine Roth Dis
missed by Justice Bradley.
The suit of Catherine Roth against the
District of Columbia to recover $4,000
claimed as damages for injury to property
of the plaintiff, which has been on trial
since last Tuesday, came to an abrupt
close yesterday. After all of the testi-
mony was in the defence moved to take
the case from the jury. The hearing OF
the argument on this point followed and
Justice Bradley, who presided at the hear
ing, directed the jury 10 render verdict
for the defendant.
Mrs. Roth is the owner Of premises 1928
Fifth Street northwest, and for many years
conducted grocery business there. A few
years ago the District authorities erected
police station and a stable adjacent to her
property. The result was, she alleged, that
her property became untitled for business
purposes and in other ways deprecated IN
value. Justice Bradley, in rendering his
opinion, said:
1T appears that this stable has been
from the outset under the management
and control of the Metropolitan Police
force; and it appears by the testimony of
the Major and Superintendent of the Me
tropolitan police that the ambulances are
kept luGits anu liit liOlStS al iASPt tlACA -
fed there, and are used only for the pur-
poses that come under the direction of Of
fcers of the Metropolitan Police force
for the purpose of taking up emergency
cases of accident or injuries in the streets,
rescuing persons who may be taken sick
and who have to be taken TO the hospital,
and for other purposes
In the light of all the authorities which
have been read 20 the court during argu-
r. &c pIaa nd Ntrall ffIad .rhgf a
municipality is not responsible for the acts
of its police officers, that it is hardly nee
essary for me to refer TO the authorities;
their duty is a public duty, rather than a
private duty, and the municipality is not
responsible for any of their faults.
"The questions presented in this case
have been extremely interesting, and espe-
cially the one as to the liability of the mu-
nicipaIity for the acts of its officers, and
where the line is TO be drawn between liza
bility and non liability. 1t has been held
distinctly that a municipal corporation is
not liable where persons or property is in
iured in the performance of police duty by
a police officer; also that the municipality
is not liable where death is occasiOned by
a driver of an ambulance on the streets;
also that the municipality is not liable for
the negligence of an inspector of steam
boilers, appointed by the city, his duty be-
ing pubic duty-the municipality IN pro-
viding for such inspection was providing
for the welfare of the public, just as in the
appointment of police officers and charg-
ing them with certain duties. So, too, it
has been held that the city of Washington
is not liable for the tort of a police magis-
trate or a policeman. 1t has been held
that a municipality is not liable for the
acts of firemen at fire or for the negli-
gence of fremen in operating fire engine
or whatever machinery used in the per
Torrance of that public duty.
$50 that it appears to me to be perfectly
clear that the District of Columbia is not
liable for the acts of the members of the
Metropolitan Police force while acting IN
the line of their official duty, that being
public and not a private duty, exercised
for the benefit of the public"