Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-06-26
POLICE COURT UPHELD
Court of Appeals Decides
Automobile Case.
JURY TRIAL DENIED
OPINIONS HANDED DOWN I'm
NUMBER OF CAUSES.
One Case Previously Passed Upon by
Same Tribunal Involves Funds In
United States Treasury.


District of Columbia. Bowles was prosecut-
ed In the Police Court on a charge OF vio-
| lating a municipal ordinance or police regu-
! lation which prohibited the propulsion of
! horseless carriages on the streets of this
I city beyond a certain specified rate OF
speed. He demanded jury trial as mat
ter of right. and was refused: and he ex-
cepted to the ruling of the court In that re-
gard. The court then proceeded to try the
| case without jury. found Bowles guilty
and adjudged him to pay fine of SIS. and
in default of payment to be committed to
the work house for sixty days. He was al
| lowed to remove the case to the Court of
Appeals by writ of error.
Bowles commended that he was entitled
/ to a trial by jury-first on the ground that
the offense charged Is one which at COM
mon law would have entitled him to a trial
by jury. well under the code itself
by a proper construction of its provisions
and secondly. that the provision of the code
in regard to prosecutions in the Police
Court is null and void In so far it pro-
! h,bits trial by jury in cases where the fine
may be as high 80 and the imprison-
ment whether for non-payment of the
fine or otherwise, may be for a period Of
one year.
The Court of Appeals holds that IF the
ofrense of fast driving was not such at
common law, but is only made such by
municipal ordinance in this and other SINH
lar cases. we do not find that the ConSti-
tuition of the United States has anything
to do with the method OF it's punishment"
II was argued that the code provides for
an alternative punishment by imprison-
ment for more than thirty days more.
and therefore entities party to a trial by
jury. On this point the Court of Appeals
says:
THE vice of this argument is so patent
that IT requires no great amount of con-
sderaton. If 1t were well founded every
In nC r0y,ld
have to be tried by jury. for 1t would al
ways be In the power of the accused to re-
fuse to pay a fine imposed and thereby to
force an Imprisonment, II the municipal
ordinance is not to become a nullity and
mockery."
Decree Reversed.
The Court of Appeals has also handed
down opinions follows:
E. o. Wagenhurst against Elias Wine
land. decree reversed, with costs, and cause
remanded that proper amendments may be
made and further proceedings had in man
ner not inconsistent with the opinion Of
the Court of Appeals. The opinion was
written by Mr.. Chief Justice Alvey. This
case. which has now been twice passed
upon by the appellate court was originally
filed against the appellants to establish
ownership Of funds on deposit in the treas
ury of the United States for payment Of
certain District sewer contracts. and on
April Justice Hagner signed a decree de-
claring that the funds belonged to Wine
land. The appellants noted an appeal to
the higher court, making exception to the
ruling of Justice Hagner that their answer
to the cause was insufficient. The Court Of
Appeals says II cannot understand why the
answer was held insufficient, unless 1t Was
because the answer was not divided into
paragraphs. as required by rule "a. Ac-
cording to the appellate court such require
ment was an impracticable thing: the ap-
pellants have good ground for defense to
the bill OF the plaintiff. and apparently be-
cause of some supposed defect in the plead
fngs or proceedings the benefit of that de-
Tense has been denied to the defendants.
Accordingly in order to effect the purpose
of Justice. the decree appealed from is re-
versed stated.
The petition of Mr.. wagenhurst for writ
connection with the foregoing proceedings.
has been dismissed by the Court of Appeals.
Affirmed With Costs.
Clara Louise Mackey, also known as
Clara Louise Peters, appellant. against Eu-
gene Peters. a lunatic. by his next friend.
Hannah II. Pearsell; orders appealed from
affirmed. with costs, and cause remanded
for further proceedings therein according to
law. and with leave to complainant to
amend bill by making the committee of the
lunatic parties thereto as defendants. Opin-
ion by Mr.. Justice Morris.
Mrs Pearsell, paternal aunt of Eugene
Peters. instituted proceedings for the pur-
pose of obtaining an annulment Of the mar
riage between Eugene Peters q lunatic
and Clara Louise Peters. 1t was asserted
that Mrs. Peters had fraudulently effected
the marriage. Mr.. Peters being a man or
considerable wealth.
Mrs. Peters demurred denying the jurts-
diction of the court. The demurrer was
oyerruled and she secured a special appeal.
She contended the suit could not be insti-
tuted by next friend and that the bill
was defective. inasmuch as 1t did not al
lege that Eugene Peters had been declared
insane at the time of or prior to the mar
riage. With reference to the first conten-
ton. the Court of Appeals holds that a
suit for annulment of marriage can prop
erly be instituted by the next friend to a
lunatic. The court adds that 1t cannot ac-
cede to the correctness Of the second con-
tention.
Armstrong VS.. Ashley and Others.
Johnston Armstrong. receiver for the
New South Building and Loan Association
OF New Orleans. La. appellant, against
James A. Ashley and others: decree affirm
ed. with costs. Opinion, by Mr.. Justice Nor
his The action was a suit in equity insti-
tuted by the appellant against the appeilees
to have an equitable lien declared against
lands held and owned by the defendants In
square No. 0S9 in this city for the value Of
certain improvements placed thereon with
money OF said building and loan associa-
ton. claimed to have been advanced in
good faith by II to the persons who con-
Structed the improvements.
The lower court held that the complain
ant had made no case for relief, and ae-
cordingly dismissed the bill. From this de-
cree the complainant appealed
Lower Court Sustained.
Thomas w. Smith and the District of
Columbia. appellants. against Lizzie Davis,
by her next friend, George A. Davis: judg-
ment affirmed. with costs; opinion by Mr..
Chief Justice Alvey. Proceedings were in
sttuted against the appellants to secure
damages for injuries sustained by reason
of the wrongful erection and maintenance
of pile OF timber In one of the public
streets of the city. The plaintiff girl
OF ten years was hurt July %. 1901. the
timber falling upon her while she and
Maisie Cissel were at play She filed suit
and received verdict of $500. Appeal
was noted upon numerous assignments OF
error.
Thomas w. Smith and the District OF
Columbia. appellants. against William Cis-
sci. administrator of Maisie s. Cissel judg-
ment affirmed. with costs; opinion by Mr.
Chief Justice Alvey. The facts In this
similar to those in the Davis