Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-06-03
IN COURT OF APPEALS
OPINIONS HANDED DOWN IN
NUMBER OF CAUSES.
Judgment of Police Court Reversed
Jurisdiction of Island Of
Guam Case.

late yesterday afternoon the Court or Ap-
peals handed down several opinions.
Mr.. Justice Morris wrote the opinion of
the court in the case of Patrick Mann,
plaintiff In error against the District Of
Columbia, the judgment of the Police Court
being reversed thereby. Mr.. Mann was
convicted in the Police Court of trans
porting a dead horse that belonged to him
through the streets of this city and out
OF the District The Police Court took the
view that Mr. Mann had acted contrary to
the municipal regulations inasmuch as the
District Commissioners. in $780, had en-
tered into contract with a certain firm
to haul all garbage. dead animals and the
like from the city. The Court of Appeals
holds that the death of an animal does not
terminate the owners property right in it.
and while he may be required to dispose Of
1t, the authorities cannot deprive him of it
by giving it to another, and that the owner
may say what disposition shall be made Of
1T outside of the District of Columbia.
Therefore, says the Court of Appeals Mr.
Mann was acting lawfully in taking the
horse outside the city
Lower Court Affirmed.
The Judgment of the lower court is af-
hrmed by the Court of Appeals in the case
of the United States Electric Lighting Com
pany, appellant. against Nellie Sullivan adj
mnistratrix of the estate of Michael Hur-
ley. A verdict in favor of the administla-
trix for $1,000 was rendered in the court
below against the appellant as damages for
the alleged negligent killing of Hurley,
september 10. 1900 when Hurley touched a
live wire in the cellar at ZIG 18th street
The appeal was from rulings on points of
law by the court below.
Case of Edward johnson.
In an opinion written by Mr. Justica
Shepard the Court of Appeals sustains the
view of Chief Justice Bingham, now re-
tired, that the District Supreme Court is
without authority to issue a writ of habeas
corpus to compel the Secretary of the Navy
to produce before the court here the body
of a person imprisoned on the Island of
Guam. Edward johnson, a member of the
United States Marine Corps while on duty
on the Island of Guam, was accused of an
offense. and instead of having a hearing
before court-martial he was tried ami
convicted before an alleged civil court and
sentenced to Imprisonment for six years
Habeas corpus proceedings were Instituted
in his behalf. the District Supreme Court
being asked to require the Secretary of the
Navy to produce Johnson before it. The
Secretary asserted that the District Su-
preme Court was without jurisdiction in the
matter. which view was sustained by Chief
Justice Bingham. and is now upheld by the
Court of Appeals In the course of the
opinion the appellate court says:
Appellate Courts View.
THE question is raised Does the juris-
diction of the Supreme Court of the Dis
trict of Columbia extend to the case of any
person unlawfully restrained of his liberty
in distant possession of the United States
by or under the authority of an officer of
the navy acting as governor thereof, be-
cause the Secretary of the Navy, in the
discharge of his official duties as the head
of that department, maintains his residence
in the District of Columbia?
I'm other words-to give the question its
necessary scope-has that court jurisdiction
to inquire into the grounds of the detention
of any and all persons who, it may be al
legged are unlawfully restrained of their
liberty by officers of the army or navy in
any state. territory or outlying possession
of the United States, merely because the
respective heads of the Navy and War de-
partments of the government may be found
and personally served with process within
the District of Columbia?
I'VE are compelled to give negative an
swer to the question, notwithstanding 1t
may possibly be that the party on whose
behalf the petition is presented is restrained
of his liberty under the order of tribunal
unknown to the Constitution and law, and
is without certain remedy in any other
court.
Jurisdiction to issue the writ on his be-
half then depends upon the single circum
stance that the Secretary of the Navy 81
alleged to have the final control over his
Imprisonment. 1t is to this broad claim of
jurisdiction that we deny our assent.
Judgment Affirmed on Other Grounds.
But, if the Jurisdiction of the court
were maintained on the ground claimed,
the judgment would nevertheless have to
be affirmed The prisoner is not in the
actual custody of the Secretary. The al
legation that he Is restrained by the
agents and subordinates of the Secre-
tary and is within his control through
the custody of person unknown, who
exercises his authority under the orders
of the Secretary is conclusion of law.
We must take judicial notice of the pow
erS and duties of the Secretary under
the Constitution and laws. The officers of
the navy are not his agents. They, like the
Secretary himself, are the agents and rep
resentatives of the President of the Unit
ed States, who is the commander-in-chi
of the army and navy. The officers in
command of the Island of Guam are sub
ject to his orders. Any authority which
solely as the representative of the Presi
dent, in his name and as the organ of
his will
THE power to relieve the prisoner or
to produce him in obedience to the writ
is in the President and not in the Secre-
tary of the Navy. The Judgment must be
affirmed, and it is so ordered
Patent Appeal.
In the case of Edward Sendelbach
against Herbert b. Gillette, a patent APP
peal, the Court of Appeals has reversed a
decision of the commissioner of patenets,
ard holds that Seldenbach is the inventor
of certain improvement in wheel hub.
Through Sleeping Cars Between Wash
ingtOn and Saranac Lake via Pennsylyan MIA