The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-03-09
THE GIBSON DIVORCE CASE.
The Court of Appeals Reverses the
Previous Decision.

| The Court of Appeals for the District
/ yesterday reversed the decision of the
Supreme Court Of the District, which dis
missed the petition of Annie V H Gibson
! in which she asked for a divorce from her
| husband, Charles 4. Gibson, on statutory
| grounds. When the case came up for
| hearing in the lower court it was held
| that the testimony did not support the
| allegations made by Mrs. Gibson. and the
complaint was dismissed. From this de-
cision Mrs. Gibson, through her counsel.
Attorneys Douglass & Douglass, took an
appeal to the higher court, which, as
stated, reversed the decree of the Su-
preme Court of the District.
A great deal OF interest was taken in
the proceedings instituted for divorce by
Mrs. Gibson because of the circumstances
Immediately preceding and following the
filing OF her petition. Mrs. Gibson and
her husband had been living apart. but in
March, 1898, she returned to live with him.
Their reconciliation, however, was brief,
for I'm April following she again left him
and soon after began proceedings for di-
vorce Soon after this her husband.
Charles A Gibson, was indicted for adult
cry by the grand jury, but the case was
never brought to trial, and after the dis
vorce the charge against Gibson was nolle
pressed by the District Attorney.
The opinion of the court, which was an
nounced by Mr. Justice Shepard, states
that the case be remanded to the lower
court. where decree shall be entered in
accordance with the judgment of the
Court of Appeals.
In the case of Richard w. Tyler against
the PENNSYLVANIA Railroad Company. the
Court of Appeals for the District. in an
opinion announced by Chief Justice Alvey
yesterday. held that the plaintiff is not
entitled to damages for alleged false
arrest.
This decree confirms the Judgment of
the Supreme Court of the District.
IN his claim for damages. Tyler set
forth that on November 90 1855, he was
arrested by agents Of the Camden and
Atlantic Railroad. which corporation, it
was stated, was operated and controlled
by the PENNSYLVANIA Railroad Company.
Tyler stated thai in August OF the year
mentioned he purchased an excursion
ticket over the Pennsylvania Railroad for
s. for "A round trip between Washington
and Atlantic City
While returning from Atlantic City TO
Washington. when he arrived at Camden.
n. j., Tyler alleged that he was placed
under arrest by the officers and agents
Of the Camden and Atlantic Railroad. lie
:ilcd suit TO recover $4,000 as damages.
The case remained on the docket for fif-
teen years. and was not brought to trial
until last year. The Pennsylvania Rail
road Company was represented by Attor-
neys McKenay and Flannery. and Tyler
by +. IL. Mackcy and Holmes Conrad.
The conductor in charge of the car on
which Tyler was a passenger refused 10
accept his ticket because it was not
cOuntersigned by the agent Of the Camden
and Atlantic Railway at the Atlantic
City station. Tyler was taken before the
officers of the road at Camden, who
stated that the order requiring the coun-
tersignine of the tickets had been abrO
gated two months previously.