The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-08-09

The sequel to the successful suit Of Will
liam and Laura p. Howard, husband and
wife, against the Chesapeake and Ohio
Railroad Company. for $4,000, as set forth
in a petition fled in the Supreme Court
of the District yesterday by r. Ross Perry,
the plaintiffs attorney. presents very
unusual condition of affairs In brief, as
the result of the litigation, there is $4,000
deposited in a local bank to the credit of
the two Howards. and each claims the
whole amount and objects to the other
drawing the money from the bank or shar-
ing in its benefits
In his petition Mr.. Perry gives brief
review of the case of the Howards against
the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Com
pany. The sum of $50, eco was claimed as
damages for injuries sustained in a rail-
road accident near Soldier, Ky. on No
vember is. 1856 while Mrs. Howard was
a passenger aboard one of the cars of the
defendant. 1t is also explained that the
plaintiffs attorneys were to receive one
third OF the amount for which judgement
was obtained
BY this agreement, when the railroad
company paid the judgment against it on
July 13 last, the plaintiffs were entitled to
$4,000, which amount Mr.. Perry deposited
to their credit in local bank. Mr.. Perry
now informs the court that William How
ard and his wife, Laura p Howard, each
claims the whole amount. The husband, 1t
is stated, bases his claim on the laws or
the District relating to such matters. Mrs.
Howard alleges, IL is stated, that her claim
to the fund is most meritorious, because
she was the person injured.
Besides this. at the time the suit was
filed she contends, it is said. that she and
her husband were residents of the State OF
Indiana, and under the laws of that State
she is entitled to the money in dispute
Further, she is said TO claim that prior
to and since she was injured in the rail-
road accident she supported herself by her
own industry. II is also alleged that
Mrs. Howard claims that she and her hus-
band live apart and that she visits him
but seldom, and but for a brief time.
Mr.. Perry states that, under the cir
cumstances, he is in doubt as to which
of the claimants he should pay the money,
and asks permission to turn il over to
the court for final disposition. lie also
asks that the Howards. or either Of them,
be enjoined from proceeding against him
at law to compel the payment OF the
money. The petitioner is represented by
his son, r. Ross Perry. ir.
In the original declaration filed in the
case in December, 1887. it was alleged that
on November is, 1856, Mrs. Howard was
a passenger in one of the cars of the
Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company en-
route from Louisville to Washington.
While making the journey the car In
which Mrs. Howard was riding was de-
rallied and precipitated over a steep and
high embankment AS result OF the ac-
cident, it was alleged, Mrs. Towards spine
was permanently injured. For nearly a
year she was confined to her bed and 1t
was about a year afterward she fled suit
for damages.
At the time she was injured Mrs. How
ard was employed as a clerk in the De-
partment Of Agriculture and her injuries
were such as TO incapacitate her and re-
quire her resigning her position.
During the time the suit was a matter of
litigation four attorneys, Messrs. S. S.
Henkel c. s. Moore ]. Francis Smith, and
r. Ross Perry. represented the plaintiff.
The first two however, died after the pro-
ceedings we're begun.
When the case was first called up for
trial in the circuit branch of the Supreme
Court Of the District the presiding justice
took it from the jury. The plaintiffs APP
pealed to the Court of Appeals for the
District, which tribunal reversed the de-
cision of the lower court. The case was
then called up for trial second time and
the jury which heard the testimony rem
dered verdict awarding the plaintiffs the
damages claimed.
The defendant noted an appeal to the
Court Of Appeals for the District. There
the judgement of the lower court was
affirmed, and an appeal was taken to the
Supreme Court Of the United States. which
tribunal in May last sustained the findings
of the lower courts. Messrs Perry and
Smith, representing the plaintiffs. caused
to be entered upon the records of the case
in the Supreme Court of the District, judg-
ment paid and satisfied"