Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1902-06-23
THE ANTl-SMOKE LAW
Court Of Appeals Hands
Down an Opinion.
POLICE COURT UPHELD
LINDLEY E. SINCLAIR AGAINST
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Decisions Rendered in Other Local
Causes-Case of Robert NJ.
Thompson.
POLICE COURT UPHELD

| 4ue court OF Appeals To-Day named down
an opinion. written by Mr.. Justice shep-
ard. affirming the judgment Of the Police
Court in the case of Lindley E. Sinclair,
plaintiff in error. against the District of
Columbia-one of the smoke law cases. Mr..
| Sinclair. as representative Of the United
| States Electric Lighting Company,
| convicted in the Police Court of violation of
| the smoke law. the unlawful smoke hav-
| ing issued from the building of the COM
| psny at 14th and B streets. Mr.. Sinclair
| appealed. setting up several assignments of
! error. The first assignment of error was
| on an exception taken to the admission of
! the evidence of Witness Lynch, an inspec-
| tor of the health department. relating a
| conversation had with Sinclair. The other
| assignments of error had to do with the
admission Of testimony and the instructions
| given the jury.
| The Court of Appeals, in affirming the
| judgment says it finds no error in the ac-
| ton of the Police Court.
q. S. Marshal Against B. M. Thompson
In an opinion written by Mr.. Justice Nor
| ris-Mr. Justice Shepard concurring and Mr..
Justice Alvey dissenting-the Court of APP
peals today affirmed the decision of the
| Supreme Court of the District of Columbia
in the case of the United States marshal
|
NJ. Thompson. The appeal was from an
order in a case of habeas corpus wherein
| Mr.. Thompson was discharged from the
! custody Of the marshal.
An indictment was reported against
| Thompson in the district court of the
| United States for the eastern division of the
| western district of Tennessee May /, 1855.
| for wrongfully withholding from certain
! pensioner certain pension money. He was
~ nd hgyf for onfo
| was deferred. In the meantime Thompson
| entered into recognizance for his appear
ance at subsequent term. He failed. how
! ever. to appear at the time indicated.
| Thompson came to this city and has since
| resided here.
Thompson was arrested here under pro-
| ceeding to secure his return to Tennessee.
| He secured his release June g. 1883, by
| habeas corpus, the justice holding that sec
ton 1014 of the Revised Statutes of the
| United States. under which it was assumed
he was sought to be held. did not provide
| for such case as his. 1t was construed
| that the state authorized the arrest and
removal Of the offender for trial, but not
| for sentence after trial had and conviction
| by the verdict of jury.
| Thompson was rearreSted at the instance
| of those who had become sureties upon his
bond in Tennessee. Again he was discharg
| ed by habeas corpus it being held that the
| commissioner before whom the bond had
| been taken was without authority of law to
| take it.
| No further proceedings were had until
April %, 1901, when Thompson was again
| arrested to be taken to Tennessee for SEN
| tence. He was discharged by the Supreme
Court December %, 1901, and the marsha!
appealed.
| er he could lawfully be removed under the
| circumstances of the CASE says the Court
| of Appeals. 1.-The same precise question
under precisely the same circumstances is
now again raised; and while We think that
| the former release was based upon
roneous construction of the law. We think
We are compelled to give it effect as final
| adjudication. We think that there no
error in the decision of the court below
upon this hearing. and We are of opinion
| that the decision should be affirmed"
Opinion in Insurance Case.
| The Court Of Appeals. in an opinion writ
| ten by Mr.. Justice Shepard, concurred in
| by Mr.. Chief Justice Alvey, Mr.. Justice
Morris dissenting. today reversed the judg
| ment of the lower court in the case Of
James L. Parsons. appellant. against the
| John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Com
| peny. to the use Of August B. Douglas.
The action was one at law commenced by
the insurance company to the use Of
| Douglas, its local agent, against Parsons.
| to recover s42s5O, being the first years
| premium upon a policy of $4,000, alleged
| to have been issued to and accepted by
Parsons. According to Douglas. he de-
/ livered the policy to Parsons upon the lat
| ter's promise to pay the premium as soon
| as he could obtain some money upon a
building contract. Parsons denied the
ceptance of the policy left with him and
| the promise to pay the premium at any
| time
| The Court Of Appeals holds that the court
| below erred in refusing to direct the jury
to find a verdict for the defendant. The
| judgment Is therefore reversed and the
| cause remanded for a new trial.
Court Makes a Ruling.
| The Court of Appeals this afternoon
made an important ruling to the effect that
| it has no jurisdiction to hear cases in ap-
| peal from the Supreme Court of the District
| of Columbia that were taken to the latter
! court on appeal from justice of the peace
| The Court of Appeals holds tnat in the
| class referred to it can only consider those
cases originating with and coming from
justice of the peace into the District Su-
| preme Court for trial and judgment on
| the ground of concurrent jurisdiction and
| brought to that court by certiorari and not
| technically on appeals
The foregoing ruling was made In the case
of Diller B. Croft, appellant; against Fran
| els Miller, the appeal being dismissed. opin-
| ion by Mr.. Chief Justice Alvey.
| The Fidelity and Deposit Company Of
Maryland. appellant. against the United
| States Of America, to the use Of Lewis E.
| Smoot, judgment affirmed with costs. opin-
| ION by Mr.. Justice Shepard The appellant
| is surety company. authorized to become
surety on bonds given by contractors for
public works in the District of Columbia,
! and appealed from a summary Judgment
| rendered against 1t under the seventy-third
| rule of the District Supreme Court.
The Parliament of the Prudent Patricians
| of Pompeii, appellant. against Evelina
Mari; judgment affirmed opinion by Mr..
| Justice Morris. The appeal was from an
| order sustaining a demurrer to pleas. the
| case being based on policy of insurance.
! The Court Of Appeals this afternoon also.
| handed down opinions in the following ap-
| peals from order OF the commissioner Of
patents:
| Funk against Haines and Matteson: deci-
| sion affirmed.
| Funk against Haines: decision affirmed
In the matter of the application Of Ches-
| ter Mcneil; decision affirmed.
In the matter OF the application OF Her
man Frasch: appeal dismissed for the want
| Of jurisdiction.
In Other Causes.
Other opinions handed down today by the
| Court Of Appeals follow:
The Metropolitan Railroad Company. APP
pellant. against Marina Loud: judgment al
| firmed with costs; opinion by Mr.. Justice