Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-03-08
UNITED STATES FLAG
SHALL NOT BE USED FOR ADVER-
rIsINa PURPOSES.
Court Of Appeals Of the District Of
Columbia So Decides-other
Opinions.

The flag of the United States may not be
| used for advertising purposes, neither may
| the coats of arms of the several states. ac-
| cordlng to "a decision of the Court of APP
| peals of the District of Columbia, on an
| appeal taken by Calm. Belt & Co. OF Balti-
! moree from the decision OF the commits
| sioner of patents. refusing to register a
| trade mark containing the coat of arms of
| the state of Maryland The opinion was
written by Mr. Justice McComas.
The verdict for $s.46s secured by Melville
| d. Hensey against the Mercantile Trust
Company of Pittsbuhg must stand, accord
| ing to an opinion of the Court of Appeals
! written by Mr.. Justice DuelI. and handed
down late Yesterday afternoon. Mr.. Hensey
sued fer $4,000 as damages alleged to have
resulted from the failure of building con-
tractor to erect certain houses in Washing
| ton Heights In accordance with the plans
ana if speclncations and within the time re-
| CURED The defendant was the surety on
| the contractors bond. Verdict was REM
| dered In favor of Mr.. Hensey for IS, 46S,
from which the surety>company appealed.
Inc appellant contended that the archi-
| tects certificate should have been treated
| as conclusive: that there was not suffi-
Gent proof of damages, and that the con-
altions OF the bond did not include liqui-
| dated damages for delay. The lower court
overruled all these contentious, and its ac-
tlon was yesterday approved by the appel
| late court.
| Mr. Chief Justice Stafford delivered the
| opinion affirming the judgment of the lower
| court In the ejectment suit brought by
Allce s. Jordan against William H Brice
| and others. The plaintiff below was award
| ed the possession of lots 10 and IL in square
144. and in affirming this finding the APP
| pellate court holds that the proof was suf-
| ncient to show title in the plaintiff by ad-
| verse possession.
Postmaster General a Party.
| In an opinion-written by Mr.. Justice Duell,
| the Appellate Court reversed the decision
| OF the lower court in the case of Henry o.
| Houghton and others against Postmaster
General George B. Cortelyou, who appealed
| from such portion of the Judgment of the
lower court as denied him the right to an
assessment of damages suffered by the
| defendant by reason of the suing out of an
Injunction forbidding him to prevent the
| issuance of second-class postal rates to a
certain publication of the compliments.
| The cause was originally instituted against
the late Henry c. Payne, then Postmaster
| General. A temporary restraining order
| was issued, which was eventually made
perpetual.
From this appeal was taken to the
/ District Court of Appeals, which reversed
! the decree of the lower court. Subsequent
| ly the matter was taken to the United
| States Supreme Court, where, April II. 1904,
| the decree of the appellate court was af
| firmed
| Mr.. Cortelyou, having become Pos tmaster
| General, was substituted defendant.
| March -. 1905. and later the lower court
granted a decree ordering that the prior
! judgment be reversed in part, but holding
| that the defendant was not entitled to re-
| cover damages resulting from the injunc-
| ton. The appellant commended that the
| trial court had erred in holding that the
| compliments and their suretes on the IN
! junction undertaking were not. as mat
in holding that the Postmaster General
/ was not entitled to recover damages. The
| appellees contended that no damages could
| be recovered, because no bond was asked
| or given on account of the injunction which
! was finally vacated, and also that the dam
| ages sought to be collected We're not re-
! coverable, being damages to the United
| States, which was not party to the ac-
| ton.
Nothing to Preclude Review.
In its opinion the court holds that there Is
| nothing in the case to preclude its being re-
| viewed; nor did the court see any valid rea-
| son why different rule from that govern
| ing actions between individuals should be
| applied because one of the parties is a rep
resentative of the United States.
| So much of the decree as was appealed
| from was reversed with costs and the
| court below is directed to enter a decree
| against the complainant and the surety
| upon the Injunction bond for the sum of
| $6.SS0s6, with interest from July e 1905.
| The same reasons were assigned by the
| court in reversing the decision of the trial
| court in the case of the Bates & Guild Com
| pany against Postmaster General Cortelyou.
| which was based on similar statement of
| facts. The court holds that the complain
| ant and the surety on his bond are liable in
| the sum of $2,3iS.S3. This opinion was also
| written by Mr.. Justice Duell.
| 1t is no longer necessary in an appeal in
| landlord and tenant proceedings TO give a
| supersedeas bond. Such is said to be the
| purport of the decision OF the Court of APP
| peals in an opinion by MIR. Justice DueIl
in
| Bowling against Thomas w Buckley. THE
| practice has been to require the appellant.
before the allowance of appeal, to file a
bond of supersedeas