Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-07-02
Mr.. THOMAS ANSWER
Corporation Counsel Makes Re-
ply to Criticism.
AS TO CONDUCT OF OFFICE
Recnonce Tc IN Gon n1oinf of Afforne1r
Response Is to Complaint Of Attorney
George E. Sullivan.
MINOR STREET LAW SITUATION
District Commissioners Approve the
Explanation-Specific Gases Cited.
Mention of Action Taken,

In a communication to the Commissioners
yesterday Corporation Counsel Thomas an
swers the complaint of Attorney George E.
Sullivan that the office of the corporation
counsel is not conducted strictly in the
interest of the residents of the District
Mr.. Thomas says that he is conducting his
office in a manner which he believes COW
ers his full duty. The Commissioners ap-
proved the statement.
Il have the honor to return the papers
containing complaint of Mr.. Geo. E. Sun-
van upon the attitude of the corporation
counsefs office on the Minor street law
situation Mr.. Thomas says:
The specific case of which complaint Is
made is that of Handley agt. mcfarland
ct al, Equity No. 25305. This bill was
filed to set aside an assessment made
against lot s. in square 700, on account Of
the opening Of minor street in that
square, because the law under which the
minor street was opened was unconstitu-
tional and void, and for other reasons, the
most important of which was the averment
that the Commissioners of the District did
not act in good faith when they certified
that the opening of the said minor street
was for the public interest.
Action on Demurrer
"A demurrer was nterposed to the bill
and argued before Mr.. Justice Stafford, who
sustained the demurrer as to the constitu-
tionality of the act, but overruled the de-
murrer as to the averment that the Com
missioners did not act in good faith, hold
ing this question to be one of fact which
the complainant was entitled to prove If
she could. Mr.. Sullivan sought to adduce
testimony to sustain his claim that the
Commissioners had not acted in good faith,
and among other witnesses called the Com
m IF ha ri To ifx- Tha
testimony of the Commissioners practically
destroyed his case, and disproved the allie
cation that they had not acted in good
faith. Mr.. Sullivan attempted to have
hearing without fling the testimony of the
Commissioners, but this office objected, and
the Equity Court, Mr.. Justice Gould pre-
siding. ordered the hearing to be stayed
until that testimony was filed.
The testimony was subsequently filed.
In the meantime the Brandenburg case
had been taken to the Supreme Court of
the United states and was approaching
hearing there After the decision in that
case Mr.. Sullivan asked leave to amend
the bill in the Handley case, and did
amend. after leave granted, by adding an
allegation that the jury which sat In the
proceedings for the opening of the minor
street in square 100 did not apply the
law as interpreted by the Supreme Court
in the Brandenburg case, but proceeded
under the erroneous theory that the jury
which sat in the proceedings did mold for
the opening of Newport place, viz, That
all the damages and costs had to be as
sessed against property owners In the
block in which the minor street was
opened, notwithstanding that the prop
erty may not have been benefited to the
amount assessed
Answer Of the District.
''To this allegation the District made an
swer that the jury proceeded in a lawful
and valid manner, and made their assess
mentS in accordance with law Tbio ,IIa.,
ton was based on the verdict of the Jury
which states in effect that Mrs Handleys
property was benefited in the amount as
sessed therein against it. Whether the
jury proceeded under a proper or mistaken
theory of the law; whether the members of
the jury could be called to testify TO trans
actions that took place in the jury room,
and whether complainant was actually
benefited to the extent determined by the
jury are important quest ions to be decided
The compla inant has called some members
of the jury against the protest of the .,is-
trict, who have testified variously that
they did not proceed under the theory
adopted by the Supreme Court that the
Handley property was benefited to the
amount assessed against 81 by the jury and
they would not state the property was not
benefited to the amount assessed against it,
The case rests at this stage. The Dis
trct has not yet taken testimony in its
behalf. 1t is believed that this office was
bound to protect the Commissioners
against the false charge OF want Of good
faith, and to endeavor to sustain the YER
dict of the jury and the assessment made
thereon. The course of conduct of this
Office is subject, of course to the super-
vision of the Commissioners When no
course of conduct is prescribed this office
In the conduct of cases left to it's charge
makes use Of every proper legal defense
which an attorney would in acting for q
private client, and endeavors to secure a
full and fair hearing upon all questions of
law and fact arising In the case This
rule has been followed in the present case
and nothing less could have been done it
is believed, without failure to discharge
that measure of duty which the corpora
ton counsel owes to the Commissioners