Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-04-05
Lower Court Sustained in
Tyner and Barrett Cases.
O R DE r AFFIRMED
oPINYoN OF COURT OF APPEALS
s HANDED DOWN.
Decisions in Other Cases Of Local In
terest Carried to the Higher
Court


| written BY Mr. Justice Shepard, Affirming
the order of Justice Pritchard in Criminal
Court No. l. in the two cases of James N.
Eyner and Harrison j. Barrett, appellants.
against the United States of America. In
/ each of the cases special appeal was al
/ lowed from an Introductory order of Jus
uce Pritchard overruling the defendants
demurrer to the indictment which charges
them with the crime of conspiracy, under
section $40 of the Revised Statutes.
| The recitals of the Indictments are identi-
cal. save In respect of the particular offense
winch is. made their predicate. In one of
them the conclusion is that the defendants
'unlawfully did conspire, combine. confed-
| crate and agree together to defraud the
III, uniee &C. :. States while in the other true
Dill It Is, TO commit an offense against
the United States. that is to say. the Of
tense ofamisconduct on the part of him, the
SAID James N. Tyner, In his said Office of
ONCE Department, to be done and commit
| aforesaid"
In the course of the opinion the. Court Of
Appeals makes the following comment:
| THE Post Office Department is charged
| with the performance of a great public
service. IN which the people of every state,
territory-and the District are vitality inter-
ested.y
The. complete enjoyment of the benefits
and advantages of this public service, as
| well as the prevention of evils that utilize
| the mails for their dissemination, depend
| upon the integrity and efficiency of the adj
mifstratien of the affairs Of the Post Office
Department, particularly at its head in the
| city of Washington.
| amy sW1llful corrupt misconduct on
| the part of an official of the department
| that operates to impair this administration
! works a wrong to the United States and
! does them some substantial injury. The in
| jury may be pecuniary-that is to say, one
! whereby public money or property may
| have been taken, destroyed or expended;
| but 1t may also be one the general damage
| resulting from which may be most serious
| and far reaching, and yet not of a specific
character susceptible of certain ascertain
| ment and peeuniary compensation.
| "Of this latter kind is the injury en-
braced IN the charges of this indictment,
| and We are of the opinion that 1t is within
| the comprehension of the statute which
akesepgaishable conspiracy not only to
tdefraud thee United States, but to defraud
them fm;any manner or for any purpose"
Other opinions handed down today by the
! Court Appeals follow:
iiasf 70 In Other Cases.
! George n, Demonet. appellant, against
| Margaret Burkart, with the exception of
so much of the decree appealed from as
| relates to, aiimony and costs of suit. decree
reversed. with costs. and cause remanded.
with idfreeffons to vacate the decree and
| to enter sidecree allowing alimony to The
! complainant, as prayed and dismissing
! her patitiDn. as to the matter of allowance
| for the support of the child.
i The appeal was from a decree of the Dis
| trfct SMpreme Court oyerruling exceptions
Il to ie0s5r mag, a report of the auditor and
/ requiring the, appellant to pay to the ap-
peIlees The mount therein found due and
| payable sfo,her as alimony, and on account
Of hesyaxpenditures for the support of their
infant da tighter. including costs of suit
| The: decree was written by Justice Ander-
son of the District Supreme Court, who sat
/ as a, member of the Court of Appeals dur
| ing the hearing of the case.
| Lulu May Downs and Fred Starek. appel
lants. against N. Carroll Downs; order re-
| versed, with costs, and cause remanded to
| the District Supreme Court, with direc-
| lions to enter decree disnlissing the bill
| of complaint. Opinion by Mr.. Justice Nor
| ris. N. Carroll Downs, native of Mary
land. and for many years a voter in that
state, but claiming also to be a resident OF
the District of Columbia. flied suit for di-
vorce against, his wife September %, 1902.
| The defendants each filed pleas to the
| effect that Mr.. Downs at the time of the
| institution of the suit not a resident
/ of the District of Columbia, but of the state
| of Maryland The Court of Appeals holds
| that there was error in the order appealed
from which overruled the pleas interposed
| should have been sustained. and the bill
or petition for divorce dismissed.
Affirmed With Costs.
Edward White, appellant. against Angus
| ia Patten Glover, Mary E. Patten, jose
| plffne A. 'Patten, Edith Al. Patten, Helen
| Patten, and Aurelus r. Stands, decree at
| firmed, with costs, opinion by Mr.. Justice
| Shepard The appellant began the suit to
| obtain decree annulling two conveyances
Of land alleged to have been made by Au-
| gusta Patten Glover to her codefendants
| with intent to hinder, delay and defraud
| the creditors of the grantor.
| A decree was passed dismissing the bill,
| and the appeal therefrom included all of the
| defendants, but in so far as Stands was
| concerned no reversal was urged.
| The District of Columbia, plaintiff in
| error, against Frederick de b. weston:
| judgment reversed with costs; opinion l
| Mr. Justice Shepard The case reached the
| Court of appeals on writ of error to the
| Police Court to review its Judgment quash-
| ing an information against Weston for stor-
ing gasoline without first having obtained
| license therefor. The court of appeals holds
| that the Police Court erred in quashing the
information.
Frederick de B. Weston. plaintiff in
| error agt the District of Columbia: judg-
| ment reversed with costs: opinion by Mr..
Justice Shepard Weston having been con-
| victed in the Police Court for storing and
keeping gasoline without license. was al
| lowed a writ of error. The Court of APP
beaIs holds that there was nothing in the
| evidence, from which the sale of gasoline
| could be inferred. nor did 1t show that the
| same WAS stored upon the premises within
the meaning of the regulation.
| Eclipse Bicycle Company. appellant, agt
| willard NJ Farrow. decree affirmed after
being modified to show that the complain
| ant do recover from the defendant ST.
1O5 20. with interest; opinion by Mr.. Justice
| MeFrisis, -sIsit
Willianas Hepburn Russell and William
Beverly Winslows appellants, agt. the
1 Washington Savings Bank judgment re-
| versed because there was error in the direc-
tion of a verdict for the defendant; opinion
by Mr.. Justice Morris,
oip - Decree Reversed
MarysEs Hooper. appellant. against Alex
ander r. Smart and others. an appeal from
decree Diminishing a bill in equity filed
under the statute to. establish title by adj
verse possession; decree reversed. Opinion
by Mr.. Justice Morris.
Herman Schrett and Charles Schrott, APP
| pellantss aet.' Herman Schoenfeld. judgment
/ affirmed. Opinion by Mr.. Justice Morris.
Jason C. Lutterhand,- appellant, against
Hans Hansen, patent appeal; decision af-
| frrned: opinion by Mr.. Justice Morris.
Charles F.. Dawson and Julia Dawson. APP
/ pellants, against Thomas e. Waggaman,
collector OF the estate Of Bridget Gleason:
an appeal In an action Of replevin: Judg-
ment affirmed; opinion by MIR. Justice