Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-06-04
ADDITIONAL OPINIONS.
Court of Appeals Passes Upon Number
of Causes.

Additional opinions were handed down by
the Court of Appeals at the conclusion OF
it's session late yesterday afternoon as fol-
lows:
Edward G. Niles, appellant against the
United States Trust Company of New
York and others; order affirmed with costs
and cause remanded for further proceedings
therein according to law. Opinion by Mr..
Justice Morris. This has to do with a
phase of the proceeding instituted by the
United States Trust Company, as commit
tee, to obtain an accounting from Mr.. Niles
in connection with the latter's manage
ment of the estate of Mrs. Louise Beau
champ Hughes.
With reference to the allowance of an in
junction and the appointment of a receiver,
the Court of Appeals holds that the case
had already proceeded so far under the
orders of the lower court that before 1t
could properly take interference there
would have to be very clear case for such
action. But, it is held, there was none.
The main contention of the appellants, 1t
is stated, was that an injunction should
not be issued and receiver appointed upon
a bill the statements of which were merely
upon Information and belief" The Court
of Appeals does not agree with this con-
tention, as the statements of the bill of
complaint were supported by aftidavits. The
order appealed from, 1t Is added, had aot
been issued until after a rule to show cause
had been served upon the defendants and
the latter had filed demurrer to the bill.
The Court of Appeals takes the view that
if the contention of the appellants should
be allowed, then in many cases, perhaps,
in the majority of them, no injunction
pendente lite could properly be issued upon
a bill filed by a trustee, executor or any
other person suing in a fiduciary or repre-
sentative capacity.
Max kohner, appellant, against the Cap
itaI Traction Company; Judgment reversed
with costs and cause remanded for new
trial. Opinion by Mr.. Justice Morris. In
this case it is claimed, the appellant, while
riding in a summer street car, was struck
in the face by the hand of the conductor
and received injuries. The blow seems to
have been delivered accidentally while the
conductor was trying to regain his balance
when standing on the mounting board CT
the car. The lower court directed the july
to. bring in verdict for the defendant com
pany on the ground that there was no testi-
mony showing negligence on the part of the
conductor. The appeal was from this rul-
ing.
The Court Of Appeals holds that, while the
explanation offered by the defendant is thai
the act Of the conductor was wholly unin-
territorial and accidental on his part and
was committed in the effort to save him
self from injury, yet whether this evidence
is sufficient explanation may be doubted.
1t is usual for the conductor to hold on to
the stanchion while collecting fares, and,
according to the appellate court the con-
ductor might have been negligent in this
regard. The truth of such explanation, the
court holds, should be submitted to a jury
and AS there was an error in the Judgment
of the lower court, the judgment was le-
versed, with direction that a new trial De
ordered.
Metropolitan Railroad Company, appel
liant, against Edward A. Blick: Judgment
affirmed with costs. Opinion by Mr.. Jus
tice Morris. A judgment in favor of the
appellee was rendered as the outcome of a
car striking his wagon, October H. 1900,
while near the intersection of 35th and o
streets. Certain exceptions to the ruling
of the court below were noted, one being
to the admission by the lower court of tie
testimony of one witness, which was APP
parently exaggerated. The Court of APP
peals holds that the testimony, which was
In regard to the speed of the car, was a
matter of judgment and that the lower
court was right in submitting 1t to the
jurors that they might consider it's worth.
Thomas c. Chappell and Alcinda M.
Chappell against William j. Brien, SUBJ
stituted trustee; appeal dismissed on the
ground that the orders appealed from were
introductory and no special appeal could
therefore be allowed. Opinion by Mr.. Jus
tice Shepard.