Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-02-05
TWO LOCAL DECISIONS
Judgment of Court of Appeals Affirmed by
United States Supreme Court
Cases of Contractor Evans and Chas.
Empct Cumhe rlaud Both
Decided.

The United States Supreme Court in a
decision handed down by Mr.. Justice Peck
ham today, affirmed, with costs, the de-
cision of the District Court of Appeals in
the case of Ellis H. Roberts, ex rel Marie
A. Valentine.
In mis- opinion Mr.. Peckham says:
'Onc Charles E. Evans, who. previous to
1874. had done large amount of work for
the District in laying concrete and brick
pavements In the city of Washington, duly
presented his claims on that account to the
beard of audit, constituted under the act
above mentioned, which board, after an
examination of such claims, executed, on
the 1st of August 1874 the two certificates
which form the basis of the claim of the
relator, each certificate being dated on that
day. one of which acknowledged an indebt-
edness to him on the part of the District
of Columbia of $1s.616.25 and the other
5000 40
They were not, however, delivered to
Evans, because, at the time they were
made. a claim had been set up by the
authorities of the District that Evans was
liable for the expense of repairs which
were needed on payements laid by him
(which claim, however, as it afterward ap-
peared, was not well founded), and the
board of audit, instead of delivering the
certificates to Evans. withheld them from
him. and at about their date delivered
them TO the commissioners OF the DfStftct,
who held them collateral security for the
payment of any liability of Evans for the
repairs mentioned. They remained from
August, 1874, until June 0, $780, in a tin
box in the office of the treasurer of the
United States. who held it and its contents
subject to the control Of the Commission
ers of the District of Columbia.
by reason of this refusal TO deliver the
of the treasurer, Evans was unable to avail
himself of the right given by the act OF
1874 to exchange such certificates for the
3.65 bonds mentioned in that act, and for
himself of the provisions OF section of
the act approved June 16, 1880. providing
for the redemption of the certificates ere
ated by the act of 1874
In concluding his opinion, Mr.. Peckham
says:
an this case we think the proper con-
struction of the act wss clear. and the duty
of the treasurer to pay this money to the
should have been performed by him upon
demand. The judgment of the Court of APP
peals must be affirmed
Against the h. and p. X. n.
In the case of the Baltimore and Poto-
| mac Railroad Company against Charles EN-
met Cumberland. infant, by his next
| friend. Charles ]. Cumberland, the United
| States Supreme Court, in an opinion by
| Mr. Justice Brown. affirmed with costs the
| decision of the Court of Appeals of the
| District of Columbia
| The action in the above case was begun
| In the Supreme Court of the District Of
| Columbia by the plaintiff twelve years
| ago to recover damages for personal in
| juries inflicted upon him by the alleged
| negligence of the defendant company. The
/ plaintiff al the time of the accident was
| enga ged as street lamp lighter in the
! vicinity of the railroad company's tracks
/ on Maryland avenue in this city. The &C
| cident occurred about dark on the evening
| of December 10. 1894. The plaintiff having
| lighted lamp on the south side of Mary
| land avenue between 131a and 18th streets
| started to cross Maryland avenue and the
| tracks of the company for the purpose OF
/ lighting a lamp on the north side Of the
| street There was a curve in the track a
| that place and the plaintiff was struck by
| the tender Of a train and run over.
The trial of the case in the lower cour'
| resulted IN a verdict for the plaintiff fol
5000. The case was carried by the de-
PENDANT to the Court Of Appeals and the
| judgment of the Supreme Court was al
| firmed The defendant then sued out q
| writ of error from the United States Su
preme Court.
| The decision today held that the company
had not properly protected It's tracks ant
| approved the judgment of the Court of Ap
peals-