Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-03-06
BY COURT OF APPEALS
Opinions Handed Down in Four
teen Local Cases.
THREE REvERSALS ORDERED
Eleven Decisions Affirm Action Of
Lower Tribunals.
PATENT CAUSES IN THE LIST
In One Instance Mr.. Justice Robb Dis
sents From Conclusion Reached
by His Colleagues.
PATENT CAUSES IN THE LIST


Columbia late yesterday afternoon handed
down fourteen opinions in cases recently
argued. Eleven decisions affirmed the
action of the lower tribunals and three re-
versed the lower courts. All the decisions
were unanimous, except the one affirming
the decision Of the commissioner Of pat
ents in the case Of Sherwood against Drew
son, to which Mr. Justice Robb dissented.
The act of Congress approved July l, 1902.
requiring trust companies to pay tax on
their gross earnings. was upheld in a de-
cision by Mr.. Chief Justice Shepard in the
case Of the American Security and Trust
Company against the District of Columbia.
The company paid $611S.33 to the collector
Of taxes under protest, claiming that the
assessment, taken in conjunction with the
then existing law, amounted to double taxa
ton.
In refuting that contention, the Chief JUS
tice said:
The question in this case is not one
of implied double taxation. but of an in
crease in the rate taking effect in the
middle of the calendar year, which was
the year to which the former lower rate
applied, and at the beginning of the new
to do, and whether it would make some
equitable provision for the uneXpired
year, without interfering with its purpose
to make new taxing year, was matter
within it's discretion
1T did not see proper to do so, and
the courts have no power to engraft such
a provision upon the enactment, or to de-
feat the intention of Congress to create
a new taxing year by holding that 1t
could not be put in operation by reason
of its failure to provide for the condition
produced by it's change of policy
Companion Case.
The opinion sustains the judgment Of
the District Supreme Court. which was
also affirmed in the case of the Union
Trust Company against the District Of
Columbia, companion case.
The. Court of Appeals rendered opin-
ion in case involving an interesting APP
plication of the fellow-servant doctrine as
applied to mOtOrmen the local rail-
ways, reversing the trial court and direct
ing the judge below to enter judgment
for $500 in favor of the injured motor
man. William ]. Carter. who had been
employed by the City and Suburban Rail-
way Company for about two months, the
night Of December IL. 1903. ran the car
Of which he was motorman into another
car of the same company owing to the
latter car having run dead on the track
in the shadow Of high bank near Hyatts-
VILE, Md. The car preceding him had
slipped it's trolley and the conductor of
the car, it was stated, was a green hand
and was ignorant as to what to do under
such circumstances. Carter, according
to the evidence, could not see the car
ahead until almost upon it, owing to the
fact that it had no rear lamp to warn him
OF the danger. The company claimed re-
lief from liability on the ground that the
failure to have lamp was the fault of
the conductor, and that he was fellow
servant with the plaintiff. 1t gave evil
dence to the. effect that the night of the
accident it had, in accordance with its
usual custom. placed lamps on the side
walk at. 4th and 7 streets in lexington,
that there was lamp there for the I'M
lighted and that the conductors had
positive orders to get off at that point and
equip the rear end of their cars with the
lamps before shutdown. The conductor in
fault testified that the failure to have the
lamp was because he~forgot to get off
and put the lamp on his car.
Counsel for the plaintiff. Attorneys
Charles II. Merrilat and Mason N. Rich
ardson. contended that such did not re-
lieve the company from liability and was
not a case within the fellow-servant -e1S
coemploye doctrine, insisting that it was
put on the car itself and that the person
to whom it committed this duty was the
company itself and that the default was
not one in the operation of the car, but in
equipment.
Special Finding Of Facts.
The trial judge submitted the matter to
the jury for a special finding of facts with
directions to report the amount which it
thought the injured man should receive If
it were held the company under the law
was liable. The jury found in Carriers
favor for 50, 800 and that verdict the judge
set aside on the ground that the accident
was due to a fellow servants neglect and
that the company fulfilled its duty when
it placed lamps conveniently at hand on the
sidewalk for the conductors to get and
place their cars
Mr.. Justice Robb in deciding the case
said it was perfectly clear that the cars
could not be operated with safety unless
IL -1r with, 1irhf ofh f1,a,,
that furnished by the electric current which
propelled the car and that it was not
infrequent case for trolley pole to jump
the wire and leave the car in darkness and
danger That imposed on the company the
responsibility of taking adequate precaution
to equip its cars with rear-end lights. 1t
met that duty merely by providing lights
on the sidewalk and trusting to the men,
DRY of busy conductors to equip the cars
Herewith. Obviously, it was pointed out, a
car was not equipped with rear-end light
in legal contemplation when that lamp Is
on the sidewalk.
Conclusion Reached.
The court added: I'VE are forced to con-
clude that good judgment al d public policy
demand that the company be required at
its peril to in fact equip its cars with rear
end signal lamps and thus protect its en-
ployes and the lives of passengers Com
mon carriers of passengers should be held
to a very strict accountability for any dere-
LECTION Of legal duty which increases the
hazards and dangers of travel 1t is to just
such derelictions as occurred In this case
that so many appalling accidents are due.
Indeed the tendency of the times is toward
hurry and haste and carelessness. regard
less of human life, and this tendency on the
part of carriers Of passengers should If pos
sible be checked
The court said that Carter knew Of the
practice Of the company to equip its cars
in the manner it had adopted, but said that
it agreed with the plaintiffs counsel that
this knowledge did not initiate against his
right Of recovery, and that the motorman
was not. as stated. compelled to pass ISIS judg-
or to conclude as to their adequacy, but
might assume that. in whatever way the
duty owing him was performed, reasonable
care would be used to furnish appliances
necessary for operation.
Juvenile Court Reversed.
The first appeal taken from decision of
Judge DeLacey Of the Juvenile Court re-
suited In a reversal. In an opinion by Mr..
Justice McComas the action of that court
in the case of John A. Moss, IT., fined 500