Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-12-08
BOTH GIVEN EFFECT
Letter and Spirit Of Law
Governing Holiday.
OPINION HANDED DOWN
COURT OF APPEALS DECIDES
POINT OF IMPORTANCE.
Act of June 80, 1902, Accepted as APP
plying to All Official
Duty.
OPINION HANDED DOWN

Inc court OF Appeals of the District OF
eoiuHola, In its opinion, handed down late
yesterday afternoon,-a stated in The Star
hoidlhg that Saturdays after II O'Clock
mum are legal holidays in the District OF
ooiolhpia' declared that in doing so it gave
ohect 10 the letter of the law, and also, the
court peHeves, to the spirit of the law
further, the court announced, the Satur-
Jay half-holiday provision of the act OF
June 3D. l9O2, has been generally accepted
as applying to all official duty and as justi-
lying the cessation of all official work,
ing that Saturday afternoons are legal
mondays in the District of Columbia was
handed down in the jointly considered
Eases OF Charles H. Ocumpaugh, appellant,
u. Gallagher, Jr., appellant, against PhiItp
t1len Motions were made by the appelIees
10 dlsmlss the appeals on the ground tina {
. .ney We're not taken within the time pre-
scripeo by the rules of the Court of @Au-
peals, which require that appeals from the
oeclslons of the commissioner of patents
70 the Court of Appeals should be taken
VIII, forty days from the date of the rul-
ing or order appealed from, exclusive OF
sundays and legal holidays, and nor a fter-
ward. O' NV
In the aforementioned case the commits
slohers decision was rendered and bore
N>&~~
was perfected February %, 1904 Seven
sundays and one legal holiday, the 22d of
fepruary interviewed, which being deduct
ea left forty-cne days from the rendition
9I tne decision to the taking of the appeal
IN the second case the decision was rem
oered July IA, 1904, and notice Of the ap-
peal was not given until August 81 1901.
1his, excluding seven Sundays Intervening
ana a there being no legal holiday, made also
1orty-one days between the decision and
the appeal
Views Of the Court.
The Court of Appeals says:
Evidently, therefore, the appeals were
100 late in both cases, unless we take into
the account the Saturday half holiday pre-
scrloed by the code of the District of Column
pa. Originally in the code as 1t went into
effect January 1 or 2, 1892 the last clause
read: Shall be holidays in the District with
in the meaning of this section The substi-
tution OF the words, for all purposes, in
the amendatory act of June 30 1902 ha G
been generally understood and accepted as
broadening the scope of this provision so as
to make it apply to all official duty and to
justify the cessation of all official work 1t
seems to be accepted on both sides of these
cases as constituting the afternoon of Sat
urday as a dies non jurisdicus
Rule No Longer Applicable.
We think that in cases like the
the law will take no note of fractions of
days The statute law here does specifically
and in express words take note of such
fractions. 1t expressly divides the Saturday
into two parts, one for business purposes
and the other for a holiday; and we see no
reason why We should not give effect both
to the letter and the spirit of that law by
taking note of half holidays in our compu-
tations. Possibly under some circumstances
this may lead to some Inconvenience, but
the Inconvenience need not be without rem
edy, and it should not prevent us from Civ
ing effect to the letter of the law when at
the same time, as we believe, the spirit of
it will also be subserved.
I'm both of these cases there were seven
Saturdays intervening. Each Saturday was
a half holiday. The seven Saturdays gave
three full days and one-half of day for
business, and the same time for holiday. If
we deduct three days and one-half from
each of the periods there will remain only
thirty-seven days and one-half and the ap-
pellants will be found to have been within
the time limited for appeal.
I'VE are of opinion that the motions to
dismiss should be denied"
The opinion was written by Mr.. Justice
Morris.