Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-11-02
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Opinions Handed Down in
Number of Causes.
CASEO OF WILLIAM FAIR
LOWER COURTS DENIAL OF WRIT
AFFIRMED.
Petitioner Sought Release From Gus
tody of United States Marshal
Other Decisions.
CASE OF WILLIAM FAIR

Columbia, after the adjournment of it's reg
ular session late yesterday afternoon, hand
| ed down opinions as follows:
| William Farr, appellant, against Aulick
| Palmer, United States marshal of the Dis
| trict; order discharging the writ of habeas
corpus and remanding petitioner to await
warrant of removal, affirmed, with costs:
opinion by Mr.. Justice Shepard.
The Supreme Court of the District re-
fused to discharge Farr on habeas corpus
from the custody of the marshal of the
| District, to which he was committed No
vember 30 last, by order of United States
Commissioner Taylor. to await the issuance
of warrant for his removal to Tennessee
| for trial on an indictment pending against
| him there.
This indictment returned into the
circuit court for the middle district of
| Tennessee in October of last year, and
i charged Farr with violating section $3.50,
| Revised Statutes of the United States, as
amended, by devising scheme to defraud
| to be effected by the use of the mails Of
| the United States. The allegation was that
Farr pretended to confer upon certain per-
| sons honorary law degrees, which he repre-
sented to them, and which they believed to
| be, degrees of a reputable university con-
| ferred in the regular way and regarded as
| of great value because of the high standing
of the university and the great care eXer-
cised to bestow the same only upon per-
sons distinguished for learning and ability,
while, it was alleged. matter of fact,
| the degrees were from an institution which
existed only on paper, and could be pro-
cured by any one willing to pay the price,
without regard to his character or qualifi-
cations
Fairs Arrest.
Before the indictment was found Farr
had come to the District of Columbia. He
was arrested here, and after hearing be-
| fore Commissioner Taylor, at which a GER
titled copy of the indictment was the only
evidence introduced, Farr admitting his
identity, was held to await a warrant for
his removal to Nashville Tenn. for trial.
Farr then made application for his dis
charge on the writ of habeas corpus, but
his application was denied.
The contention of Farr was that the
scheme set forth in the Indictment does
not come within the scope of the statute,
| and that the indictment is so technically
defective not to justify the court in
sending him back to Tennessee for trial.
Among other things Mr.. Justice Shepard,
in the pinion, said:
I'VE regard it as unnecessary to review
the several objections that have been made
and vigorously argued on behalf of the
appellant. Forceful some of these seem
to be, We regard them as technical rather
than substantial. and therefore for the eX-
elusive consideration of the court before
which trial must be had. We think it
sufficient to say that for the purpose of re-
I,
of the indictment, literally construed, tend
to establish an offense within the scope
and meaning of the statute.
Police Court Affirmed.
Peter Trometer, appellant, against the
District of Columbia; judgment of Police
Court affirmed with costs; opinion by Mr..
Justice Morris. 1t appears that one Sunday
recently, Trometer, the proprietor of
tavern" was absent from the establish
| ment While away his wife sold whisky
to two members of the Metropolitan police
force, who were in civilian attire, and from
eter was arrested for selling liquor on Sun
day. Although the wife testified that the
sale was made without the knowledge of
her husband and without any authority
from him, and he gave evidence to the same
effect, conviction was the result Of the
trial.
According to the Court of Appeals the
real question sought to be raised was
whether the decision of the police judge
upon the question of the agency of the
wife was supported by the evidence. and
on this point concluded that, there being
evidence sufficient to justify such judg
ment the appellate court was without au-
thority to disturb 1t.
Opinions in Other Cases.
Luigi Corato.o. appellant. against the
United States; judgment of Criminal Court
No. 1 affirmed; opinion by Mr.. Justice Nor
ris.
Coratolo was convicted of assault with
intent to KILL the victim being Rosa Corado,
the girl he had expected to marry, but who,
it Is stated, transferred her affections to
another suiIo:. On appeal the question
raised was whether an indictment for as
sault with intent to kill must state the
means .wherewith the assault was commit
ted. The appellate court held that the
case was controlled by it's decision in the
case of Davis agt. The United States I6
D. c. Appeals, 442: that change in the
language of the code made no substantial
difference as to the form of the indictment,
and that the rule in the Davis case has
not been modified by any decision in the
United States Supreme Court, or by legs-
lation.
against William A. Meloy; order affirmed
with costs, and cause remanded for further
proceedings: opinion by Mr.. Chief Justice
Alvey.
The District Supreme Court declined to
enter judgment for the plaintiff on affidavits
filed by the respective parties under the
seventy-third rule Of court. The action was
to secure 500, held by William A Meloy
out of funds in his hands as the agent
and attorney for the deceased. He claim
ed that amount to be due him for services
and asserted a lien against the money in
his hands to that extent The Court of
Appeals took the view that, SO far as the
law is concerned Mr., Meloys position is
correct. and that the questions of fact
the deceased should be passed upon by a
jury. AS stated, the cause was remandcd
for further proceedings
The Court of Appeals late this afternoon
handed down opinions as follows:
Elizabeth NJ. Williams, appellant. against
Bette G. Williams and Andrew /. Williams;
order of the Probate Court reserved and
cause remanded: opinion by Mr. Chief JUS
tice Alvey. The whole question In this
case depended upon the correct construc-
ton Of section 276 and sections 277, 27s 2I9
and $50 of the District code. relating to the
granting Of administration by the Probate
Court.
Joseph Sincell, appellant, against Charles
W. Darr; order affirmed; opinion by Mr.
Justice Morris The opinion upholds the
contention that claim can be divided into
parts and suit be prosecuted on each part,
under the District code.
Benjamin I. Dexter, appellant, against
Jacob Fl Lichliter. executor Of Thns VII
son. deceased: order reversed: opinion by
Mr. Justice Shepard. This was a special ap.
peal from an interlocutory order.