The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-02-11

One of the most interesting trials which
| will come up in the Supreme Court of the
| District in the near future is that of DR..
| William A. Ferguson, alias Porcher, who
| is charged with obtaining money under
| false pretences. At the time of his arrest
the accused was believed to be the no
torious Franklin J. Moses, who was Gov
ernor of South Carolina during the days
| of reconstruction. In fact, there is a
| striking resemblance between the prisO-
ner and the former Governor of the Pal
| metto State. Ferguson, however, strenu
| ously denies that he was ever Governor of
South Carolina during the days of good
stealings," when bond issues were made
to provide the State officials with the
necessary to stay in Jack pot
The specific charge against Ferguson is
that in November last he called upon DR..
A. R. Shand, and, representing himself to
be DR.. f. Peyre Porcher, of Charleston
S. c.. negotiated a loan of So. Soon after
the alleged DIR. Porcher left the city it
was discovered that the well-known South
Carolina physician had not been in Wash
ington. Investigation followed, and some
weeks afterward Ferguson was arrested
| in New York City charged with represent
| ing himself to be DR.. Porcher and obtain
ing money under false pretences.
Soon after his arrest Ferguson was
| brought here to await trial When ar
raigned before Justice Clabaugh he stated
| that he did not have counsel nor money
with which to employ one. The court then,
as in such cases, announced that counsel
would be assigned to represent the pris-
| oner at his trial Ferguson then informed
| the court that If the counsel assigned was
net competent he would conduct his own
defence. When seen after his arraign-
ment and informed that it was suspected
that he is Franklin ]. Moses, Ferguson
denied that he is and said that when call
ed to trial he will have no trouble in cs-
tablishing his identity. He states that he
is physician by profession, but that for
the last twelve years he has been prac-
ticing surgery exclusively. 1t is well
known, Ferguson contends, that Franklin
J. Moses. formerly of South Carolina, is
not a physician. When called to trial
Ferguson said it is his intention to ask
physicians TO examine him to his
knowledge of medicine and surgery, and
thereby allow him to prove that he is what
he represents himself to be-a physi-
clan and a surgeon.
The trial of Gilbert b. Towles, who is
charged with forgery, which has been in
progress before Justice Cole in Criminal
Court No. during the last week, will be
resumed this morning. II is expected that
the trial will occupy the attention of the
court for the remainder of the week.
Justice Cole recently handed down a
very important and interesting opinion in
the matter of the taxation of costs in cases
appealed from justices of the peace to
the Supreme Court of the District.
Two cases were before him for consid-
GRAFTON. In one of them, Cassidy VS..
Roberts, the plaintiff recovered a judg
ment before justice of peace for s161 and
costs. In the other, Behrend VS.. Holmes,
the plaintiff recovered e judgment for
$25.75 before the Justice. The defendants
appealed. On appeal the plaintiff in the
former case recovered a verdict for one
cert damages, and in the latter for s11.75.
Motions were made by the defendants to
tax costs against the plaintiffs, or to
enter judgments without costs 20 the
plaintiffs, and Judge Coles decision is
based upon these motions.
1t was commended that the statute which
provides that where the declaration
states a cause Of action of which the
court has jurisdiction, but the verdict
finds the money payable by the defendant
to the plaintiff to be less than the lowest
sum of which the court has Jurisdiction,
the plaintiff shall have judgment for the
amount found due him from the defendant.
but without costs, applies to appeal cases.
This law was passed by Congress on Feb
no f.I- a.
does not apply to appeal cases, but only
to cases brought originally in the Supreme
Court. Before this law was passed, says
the court, where the plaintiff recovered
nominal damages he was entitled TO Ie-
cover his costs also, in the court of or
iginal jurisdiction, under the statute OF
Gloucester, which was in force in Mary
land at the time of the cession of this Dis
trict, and, therefore, in force here after
ward. That continued to be the law in
this District, the court holds, until the
act of February % 1857, was passed.
Since that time plaintiff who claims in
his declaration sum equal to or greater
! than the Observation-Disclosures which the
| Supreme Court has original jurisdiction,
but RECEIVERS less than the last named sum,
| is not entitled to costs. But q plaintiff,
| who RECEIVERS any sum, even a nominal one,
| before justice OF the peace, is still en-
1 LiAltl To ISCoNtI. MS COsl ln6 sLdbule
Of Gloucester.
Judge Cole further holds that there is no
statute in force here which expressly APP
! plies to cases in which the defendants ap-
| peal, and succeed in reducing, but not
| wholly defeating, the plaintiffs claims. A
| number OF local and other cases bearing
| upon the points involved are cited and
| commented upon by Justice Cole.
1T is in the discretion OF the court"
| Justice Cole says Ito decide who is the
| prevailing party in all appeal cases Tile
| court decides that where there is a judg-
ment against defendant before justice
! of the peace, and he offers to pay a part
| thereof and costs TO that time, and the plain
tiff declines to accept 1t, and upon appeal
the Judgment is reduced TO, or below, the
sum offered the defendant is the prevail
ing party upon the appeal, and entitled 10
his costs; but IL he offers nothing, and
contests the whole matter in the Appellate
Court, he is not the prevailing party IL The
plaintiff RECEIVERS any substantial sum. If,
on an appeal by a defendant from a
| judgment Of justice of the peacs against
him for a substantial sum, the plaintiff
RECEIVERS nominal sum, the defendant Is
the prevailing party, for he was forced TO
| appeal TO rid himself of an unjust Judg
ment. and the plaintiff RECEIVERS nothing
substantially. and the fact that he dii rot
tender the nominal sum before appealing
would not alter the situation. as the law
does not take notice of inconse4uential