Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-05-03
COURT OF APPEALS.
DECISIONS IN A NUMBER OF
CASES HANDED DOWN.

The Court of Appeals has handed down
opinions follows:
Charles S. Bundy appellant against the
United States, rel. Ehud n. Darling
order affirmed, with costs; opinion by Mr.
Chief Justice Shepard. The appeal was
from an order of the Supreme Court o.
the District of Columbia, awarding a wri-
of mandamus to compel the appellant, q
justice of the peace, to approve an appea
bond. The Court of Appeals holds thai
there was no error in granting the writ OF
mandamus
Geodozia Michalowicz, appellant, agains:
Stanislaus Michalowicz and Martha John
son; decree affirmed. with costs; opinion by
Mr.. Chief Justice Shepard The appellanE
filed a bill for divorce from her husband,
who was alleged to be resident of Chi
cago, and notice was given by pupllcatlon.
No appearance having been made by MIN.
attorney assigned to defend the
cause as required by statute. Upon the
hearing the bill was dismissed. and Mrs.
Michalowicz appealed. The Court OF APP
peals holds that the evidence in the case
falls short of the requirements, lacks oi-
rectness and certainty, and that by which
it is sought to be corroborated is, to say
the least, vague and unsatisfactory. The
appellate court adds that the court pelo"
was right in refusing the divorce.
Henry Held, trading as Brooklyn Vault
Light Company, appellant, against John
T. Walker; judgment reversed. with COSTS,
and cause demanded. with directions 10
award a new trial: opinion by Mr.. Justice
Morris This cause originated before
justice of the peace by whom Judgment
was rendered in favor of the appellant
who was the plaintiff before him. Upon
appeal by the defendant to the Supreme
Court of the District of Columbia, and
new trial had thereon before the court
with. a jury, the court directed verdict III
favor of the defendant, and Judgment was
vol t1n, frAy, Jr-hta h 10
appealed. The Court of Appeals says:
I'VE think the case should have been sub
mitted to jury. and that it was error 10
withdraw it from their consideration.
Jerome Hubbard. appellant against Re
becca r. Perlie; judgment affirmed, with
costs: opinion by Mr. Chief Justice Shep-
ard. The declaration was filed by the APP
pellee plaintiff, to recover damages for
injuries received from an assault and BAT
terry committed by the defendant October
l 1902. The defendant asked fourteen spe-
cial instructions to the jury, all of which
were denied The court then charged the
jury generally, and they returned a YER
dict for the plaintiff for $500 From the
judgment thereon the defendant appealed.
Finding no reversible error in the proceed
ipgs in the trial, the Court of Appeals at
firmed the Judgment
Albert Mcintosh, appellant, against James
w. Green; decree affirmed with costs;
opinion by Mr.. Chief Justice Shepard. The
appeal was from decree dismissing a bill
10 declare a trust IN certain ldnuS III Tie
District of Columbia and compel a convey
ance of the legal title. The Court of APP
peals holds that the case resolved itself
into an attempt to create an express trust
in land by parol, against the prohibition
of the statute of frauds.
Winfield Scott Montgomery, appellant,
against Richard H. Brown and Cora l..
Peters; decree affirmed, with costs; opinion
by Mr.. Justice Duell. The appeal was from
a decree, entered in the court below, in
favor of the appellees, who were the de-
PENDANTS below. The question involved was
to the proper construction on an in
terpreta ton of a will executed by Henry P.
Montgomery deceased, a brother of the
complainant. Should the will be construed
according to the contention of the COM
plainant specific relief was asked relative
to certain notes and securities. The Court
of Appeals holds that the proper construc-
ton was placed upon the will by the trial
court
Ann E. ]. Cruit, appellant, against Kate
Dean Owen and Jessie Owen Engle, decree
affirmed with costs; opinion by Mr.. Justice
Duell The appeal involved the correctness
of the construction by the court below of
the will of Robert Cruit who died Novem-
Der, 1861. The Court of Appeals held that
the assigned grounds of error were not
we'll founded.
Matte R. Slater and John G. Slater, ap-
pellants. against Thomas II. Rudderforth
and others, decree affirmed with costs;
opinion by Mr. Justice Morris. The cause
suit in equity by the appelees against
the appellants for the cancellation of GER
tain deeds, whereby Matte r. Slater,
through the procurement of her husband,
John G. Slater, had became possessed of
certain real estate, and for the reconvey-
ance and delivery of the real estate to the
complainants, as the true and lawful
owner thereof. The trial court decreed in
favor of the compliments and Mr..
and Mrs. Slater appealed. The Court of
Appeals says that the decree of the court
below eminently right and just
John G. Norwood and Thomas II. Wright
executors of Charles F. Murray, deceased,
appellants. against John R. Francis and
Anna M. Johnson; judgment affirmed, with
costs: opinion by Mr.. Justice Duell. The
appellants. plaintiffs below appealed
from judgment in favor of the appellees
entered in pursuance of verdict found
under the instructions of the court The
Court of Appeals holds that the verdict for
the appellees was properly directed