Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-02-07
BY COURT OF APPEALS
Opinions Handed Down in Fiji
teen Local Cases.
UNITED STATES MAY SUE,
Injunction Cause Affecting Order Of
American Mechanics.
DISTRICT COUNCIL Is UPHELD
Decisions of the Lower Court Sustain
ed in Thirteen Instances, Two
Being Reversed.


which the decisions of the lower court were
sustained, the judgments being reversed In
| the other two have been handed down by
the Court of Appeals of the District OF Co
| lumbia Several appeals in patent cases
| were denied.
| The right of the United States to sue the
| Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company IN
| the district court to recover a penalty OF
| 500 under the act of Congress OF March y
| 1So3 which provides that no railroad car
| operated in interstate commerce shall pc
used unless it is furnished with secure grad
irons or handhoider, Is sustained, accord
ing to an opinion by MIR. Justice McComas'
reversing the lower court. The case was
taken to the appellate court on speclai
appeal from the ruling of the District Su-
preme Court, sustaining demurrer TO
| declaration filed by the appellant In pro-
ceedings to compel the company to pay d
penalty under the act of Congress reierreu
to. In support of the demurrer the appeiIee
insisted that the special term or the gu
preme Court of the District of Columbia
known as the Circuit Court, had no juris-
diction to try the cause. In substance the
claim of the appellee was that the onileu
States district courts constitute oistl.is.
system not included In the Supreme Court
of the District of Columbia.
Meeting this question the appellate court
remarked: While granting the supreme
Court of the District the powers OF als
trict and of circuit court of the united
States, since Congress possessed the COM
bined powers of a general ana or STATE
government over the District of COLUMBIA,
Congress has wisely distrlou,eo the p otte,s
of this court as to meet the neeessities
of a state judicial system in connection
with the necessities of federal system
Sherwood Against Warner.
The Court of Appeals also affirmed the
Judgment of the lower court in the case
of Lawrence Sherwood against Bralnard
II Warner Sherwood filed suit il the
District Supreme Court against Mr.. war
ner for injuries alleged to have been re-
ceived while repairing an elevator in an
apartment house owned by the defendaht.
The testimony showed that sherwood,
while at work on the elevator, was I'M
pinced by the. machinery and directed the
ianitor of the building to star. the ele-
vator. The janitor attempted to comply
with his request, but caused the elevator
to go IN an opposite direction from that
desired by the workman and his arm was
torn from his body. The lower court d.
rected a verdict for the defendant On the
ground that the janitor in CARRYING OUT
the request of the workman was acting
as his agent and not the agent or the
owner of the building.
In announcing the opinion Mr.. Justice
Duell remarked: THE case under the evil
dence presents but one question necessary
for determination. Was the cantor the
servant of the appellee in endeavorlng to
release the appellant so as to make the ap-
peIlee liable for his negligence? That he
was in the general employee of the appellee
is admitted, yet such service does not
make the master liable except FOR acts
done for the master? While rendering
such general service he may be the serV-
ant of another AS in the New York court
of appeals Servants who are employed and
paid by one person may nevertheless De
ad hoe the servants OF another III a par
,1}fo and hat
general employer is interested In the work.
owe think the proposition founded on
reason and well established that to make
master liable for an injury caused by
his servants negligence the servant must
either have done the act causing the INJURY
in the service of the master, and In doing
an act which the master was forced to per-
form or which was done by his direction.
Under this state of facts the rule Is
that the general employer is not liable,
said the court in affirming the finding for
the defendant.
Order of American Mechanics.
The action of the District Supreme Court
In dismissing the bill for injunction brought
by the National Council of the Junior Order
United American Mechanics against the
state council of the same order of the Dis
trict of Columbia was sustained by the Dis
trict Court of Appeals IN an opinion by Mr..
Justice McComas. The National Council
sought to enjoin the local council from
using the name of state council, and from
acting as such, on the ground that the local
council had been dissolved by proceedings
taken under the constitution and bylaws of
the order The local council opposed the in
junction contending that the order of disso-
luton was void because passed under the
provisions of a void bylaw. The contention
Of the local council was sustained by the
trial court, and its decree the appellate
court uphods.
The decree of sale entered In the District
Supreme Court in the case of Alfred b.
Cosey against Moses Smith, jr., was, re-
versed by the Court of Appeals in an opin-
ion also written by Mr.. Justice McComas
Cosey filed suit in the lower court to sell
certain real estate, his right to which in
VOWED a question of heirship. Mr.. Justice
McComas in reversing the order of sale,
holds that the complainant Cosey failed to
establish his title by sufficient proof.
The indictment under which Jason w
Geist and Frank S. Richardson were con-
yicted in the Criminal Court In March last
was held by the appellate court to be suffi-
cfent. Geist and Richardson were charged
with a conspiracy to obtain money from
local merchants on the representation of
the two men that they were agents of a
mercantile gazette. On conviction they were
sentenced to serve two years in the peniten-
tiary and to pay fine of $4,000 each. Mr.
Justice Duell, in delivering the opinion of
the court remarked that reading OF the
indictment would seem to be sufficient to
advise the accused of the charge brought
against them.
Commissioner of Patents Respondent.
The Court of Appeals, by an opinion
written by Mr.. Chief Justice Shepard, af-
frmed the decision of the lower court in
the case of Joshua H. Millett and others
against F. l. Allen United States commits
sioner of patents, in which the complain-
ants invoked the aid of the District Su-
preme Court in an effort to establish their
alleged right to a certain patent. The COM
plainants claimed TO be the Joint inventors
of an Improvement In tube springs for
steam and pressure gauges, and filed an
application, which was denied. Suit was
then fled IN the District Supreme Court TO
compel the commissioner TO issue the de-
sired patent. The answer denied the allie
cation of the invention claimed and alleged
that all the material parts of the same
had been described in a number of pat
ents, domestic and foreign, a list of which
was given showing the subject matter
dates and numbers. In the opinion Mr.
Chief Justice Shepard remarked that no
error was found in the decree of the lower
court dSgnissing the bill.