Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-05-02
BY COURT OF APPEALS
Opinions Announced in Other Local
Cases-Right Of Commissioners
to Maintain Action.

The Court of Appeals of the District of
Columbia by an opinion written by Chief
Justice Shepard sustains the judgment of
the lower court in the case Of Thomas NJ.
Fields. local attorney. convicted of the
embezziement Of funds Of the Washington
Beneficial Endowment Association and sen-
fenced to serve five years In the peniten-
ttary. That portion OF the Judgment OF the
lower court. which provides hard labor in
addition to imprisonment. however. is re-
versed by the appellate court.
The court refutes the contention of the
appellant that the money I'm question was
not the property OF the association because
the funds had been transferred. The trans
fer having been declared Invalid in an
equity court. it is held that the money was
stlli the property of the association
Another contention of the defendant de-
MED by the court was to the effect that
the law which became operative in 1902 re-
,atIns 10 the disposition of money in the
hanos or receiver for corporation, did
not apply In this case, because the money
mad been paid to the receiver several years
before the law was enacted. The court
holds that 1t was the intention of Congress
to make a law which would apply not only
to cases in which money was thereafter re-
ceived but also to cases in which funds
mad previously been taken possession of
by receivers, providing the conversion &C.
Cured after the statute became effective
Right Of Commissioners.
In an opinion also written by Mr. Chief
justice Shepard the appellate court holds
tifat the District Commissioners have the
right to maintain an action to enjon the
erection or the maintenance Of a bay win
dow projecting over parking in front of
property. The case giving rise to the aues-
ton was that of John r. Guerin, who ap-
peeied from an order Of the District Su-
preme Court granting an Injunction. 1t
was ccntended by the defense that the pro-
ceedtngs should have been Instituted in the
name Of the United States and that the Dis
t1lct Commissioners were without authority
to bring the suit. The Commissioners insti-
tuted proceedings to prevent Guerin from
maintaining a bay window at premises ALI
East Capitol street. the window being erect
ed under a repair permit and extending. IT
was claimed, across the building line and
into the area above the parking.
The Judgment of the District Supreme
Court in the case of the United States
against William H. Day and Nicholas e.
granted. Suit was brought against the ap-
pellants as sureties on bond given by
Charles E. Day as vice corsul general and
deputy consul general of the United States
at Berlin. The sum of 81, "A was claim
ed. but the lower court gave judgment for
| only s116.O9. In setting aside the judgment
| court holds that errors were committed by
the trial court
The lower court is also reversed in an
opinion written by Mr.. Justice McComas in
c. Ford, in which the appellant sought to
eject the appellee from the possession of
parts of lots 20, n and % in square 3SS, in
South Washington. In the lower court a
reversal is granted by the Court of APP
peals on the ground that the evidence ad-
duced at the hearing of the case was not
sufficient to support the claim of the plain
tiff.
Lower Court Reversed.
Another case In which the Judgment Of
the lower court was reversed was that of
Edward Landvoist against Joseph Paul. in
volving a contract for the sale of real
estate. the judgment of the lower court be-
ing in favor of Paul.
In an opinion written by Mr.. Justice Duell
the judgment of the District Supreme Court,
which was adverse to the claim of title
made by Mansour Samaha to certain goods
attached by E. T. Mason & Co. to collect
debt, is affirmed.
The decision of the commissioner of pat
ents is reversed In the case of William s.
Andrews against Lars G. Nilscn The ap-
pellate court holds that the commissioner
was in error in awarding priority OF lnVen-
ton to Nilsson.
The appellate court upholds the verdict
of S25, 200 rendered in the District supreme
Court in favor of William H. Miilkeh
against Napoleon D. l'otsoil ioi Soiiiii9sioii
due on a certain sale in Kentucky. The
sale was negotiated by Milliken, who fur
nished a purchaser. but the transfer was
not consummated because of the failure of
a railroad company to build branch road
into the property, which was claimed as
one of the conditions OF the deal. His part
of the contract Milliken contended, had
been fully performed.
The appellate court affirmed the judg-
ment of the lower court in the cases of
Beall against Beall, the Washington Post
Company against Wells and Scott against
the District of Columbia. The cases OF
Scott against Herrell and Crosby against
Redout were reversed.