Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-03-07
ONLY ONE CAUSE REVERSED
Lower Tribunal Was Affirmed in Ten
Instances.
L OF PROCEEDING
DISMISSAL
Verdict Awarding Damages In the
Sum of $4,000 for Personal
Injuries Set Aside.

The District Court of Appeals late yes
terday afternoon handed down ten opinions.
eight of which affirmed the judgments or
DEGREES appealed from, one set aside YER
dict of $4,000 and the other dismissed the
appeal because the law under which the
proceeding was had did not provide for an
appeal.
The only reversal was in the case of the
Capital Construction Company against Mrs.
Jennie w. Hoffman, setting aside a YER
dict obtained in the lower court by Mrs.
Hoffman for $4,000 damages for personal
injuries
Mrs. Hoffman was riding in an elevator
at the Portner apartment house in December
1902. when the car fell. The accident, it
was alleged, was caused by the overlooking
Of the elevator and the alleged defective
condition of some of the parts of the ele-
vator machinery.
The appellate court, In It's opinion writ
ten by Mr.. Justice Duell, sustains the
charge of the trial Judge to the jury, re-
marking that 1t was fair and all that appel
liant had a right to ask The only error to
be found In the record the opinion declares,
was the admission of testimony tending to
show that the defendant, the construction
company, was Unidentified by casualty in
surance company. The Introduction of such
testimony, the appellate court said, had
a tendency to increase the amount of dam
ages awarded. The case is remanded to
the District Supreme Court with directions
to set aside the Judgment and award q new
trial.
A Suit for Alimony.
In an opinion written by Mr. Justice
DUEL the appellate court affirmed the
judgment of the lower court in holding John
Henry Lane, defendant In a suit for ali
mony, In contempt of court for refusing
to obey an order requiring him to pay the
complainant, Emma Eudora Lane S25 per
month. In reviewing the history of the
case the court stated that 1t appeared from
the record that after the cause was at issue
the complainant made her motion for all
mony, showing that the defendant was In
receipt of salary of s1C0 per month. An
order was thereupon entered, but the de-
PENDANT, after making two monthly pay
ments, 1t was stated, refused to make any
further remittances. An order to show
cause why he should not be adjudged in
contempt was answered by the defendant,
averring his inability to furnish the
amounts.
After the hearing the court made the or
der requiring the payment of arrears of
allmony, amounting to SO, within five
days, and in default of compliance that de-
PENDANT be placed in the custody of the
marshal and held until the further order Of
the court or until the money was paid.
The decision of the United States commiss
sioner of patents was affirmed in the case
of James c. Anderson against Joel c. Wells
involving priority In the invention of a de-
spectacles so as to adjust the glasses in a
certain way. Wells was granted q patent
May &c, 1903 and Anderson filed his applica-
ton December IA 1903 A conflict az TO
priority of invention between Wells and
Anderson went to the examiner of inter-
ferences who awarded priority to Wells. On
appeal the examiners-in-chief reversed the
decision, awarding the claim to Anderson
This was reversed by the commissioner of
patents, from which decision Anderson APP
pealed. The appellant claimed that he
conceived and disclosed the invention about
July !, 1902, and made model and SUBJ
seQuentiy engaged the services of manu-
facturer. Hearing that Wells had secured
a patent for the same device, he counter
manded his order and instituted proceed
ings to determine priority of invention.
Negligence Not to Be Imputed.
Negligence may not be imputed to a land
owner who maintains an unprotected pond
on his premises, in which a child who is a
trespasser upon the premises, while swim
ming is drowned. This doctrine was sus-
tanned by the Court of Appeals in a de-
cision by Mr.. Justice Duell In the case of
Monte L. Sullivan. administrative, against
Virginia C. Huidekoper. The opinion af-
firms the action of the trial Judge who sus-
tanned a demurrer by the defendant to the
declaration The facts in the case showed
that Mrs Huidekoper owned a parcel Of
land at 37th and w streets northwest over
which flowed two small streams of water
which formed into a pond about $50 feet
long, ninety feet wide and from six to ten
feet deep, the bottom being covered by
sticky mire The children In the nelghbor-
hood were won't to wade and swim in the
pond, and June s, 1904, the ten-year-old
child of the appellant fell or went into the
5rnxx cd M Vy1
In holding that the appellant could not re-
cover from Mrs. Huidekoper for the child's
death remarked that the ruling of the
United States Supreme Court in what are
known as the turntable cases could not be
extended to this case, and the appellee
could not be required to fence in the pond
Mr.. Justice McComas. acting FOR the Ap-
nellate Court affirmed the order Of the
District Supreme Court overruling de-
murrer and dismissing the petition for
mandamus filed by Emile {. Riley against
the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company.
The petitioner sought to compel the ran
road company to condemn certain lands,
owned by her, on the ground or the ioca-
ton OF her land with reference to the land
previously taken by the defendant for the
location of freight terminals In connection
with the new union station site. The land.
she claimed. was so affected as to entitle
her under the provision or the grade-cross-
ing act to compel It's condemnation.
The court holds that as the company does
not need the petitioners land, II has no
right to condemn the property, and cannot
be compelled to exercise a right not vested
In 1t.
Action Without Prejudice.
Mr.. Chief Justice Shepard delivered the
opinion of the court in the case of Atkins
against Best, affirming the decree of the
District Supreme Court. The court, how
ever intimated that its action was without
prejudice to the assertion hereafter on the
part of the appellants of their right to re-
cover such sums as they may have expend-
ed In payment of property charges against
the estate involved In the controversy.
The verdict for the defendant which was
directed by the trial Judge In the eject
ment suit brought by Frederick 8. Young
and others against the Norris Peters Com
pany was affirmed by the Appellate Court
In an opinion by Mr.. Chief Justice Shepard
This case involved the question whether
will which became operative prior to June
6, 1893 when the new wills act was passed,
could be proved in an eJectment proceeding
by the subscribing witnesses. or whether the
exclusive method of proof OF such wills was
by proceedings in the Probate Court The
Court OF Appeals sustains the ruling OF the
lower court, that proof may be made by the
subscribing witnesses in ejectment proceed
ings. The court also held, constituting the
will that considering the whole langtfa "a