Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-03-31
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Opinions Handed Down by Jus.
tees Today.
'CASE OF LOUIS R. PFEIFFER
Police Court Conviction Of Hand.
book Making Sustained.
EXTENSION OF 18TH STREET
Affirmation of Lower Courts Action
in Ratifying Jury's Verdict.
Other Causes Decided.

The District Court of Appeals. in an
opinion by Chief Justice Shepard. today
affirmed the judgment of the Police Court.
which convicted Louis r. Pfeiffer of vio-
| lating the section of the code forbiddinS
! the ma king of handbooks in the District
| of Columbia. Pfeiffer was &onvicted by
A Jury in Judge Kimbalrs court and SEN
| fenced to pay $500 fine and serve ninety
| days in Jail.
The Court of Appeals granted a writ of
| error and it was contended in his behalf
/ that there was not sufficient evidence in
| the case to have warranted submission of
the case to the jury. AT the trial In the
| Police Court counsel. at the close of the
governments case moved to take the case
| from the jury. which motion was denied,
| whereupon the defendant went on the
| stand At the close of his testimony the
motion to take the case from the jury was
| not renewed.
! The Appellate Court holds that it must
| decline to consider the point raised on
appeal that there was not sufficient evil
dence to warrant conviction. 1t said that
| Pfeffer. having taken his chances on a
| favorabl verdict before the jury, could
! not, where the offense was simply a mis-
| demeanor raise the point in the appellate
court. In the case of conviction of an
| Infamous crime, 1t held, the appellate
court would inquire into the suft1ciency of
| the evidence and If need De, reverse the
| judgment of the lower court. but such
discretion ought not to be exercised in
| case of the character Of that of Pfeifer
18th Street Extension.
The chief justice also delivered the
| opinion of the court affirming the action
| of the District Supreme Court in ratify-
ing the verdict of jury summoned to
reassess the benefits accruing from the
| extension of 18th street. A former jury
several years ago returned a verdict find
| ing the value of the land to be taken to be
S266OOO and assessing $133.OO of the
| amount as benefits. On objection by the
property holders assessed for benefits the
| court set aside so much Of the first jury's
finding related to the benefits. A
| new jury. acting only on the question Of
! benefits. reported $4,000 against the prop
| erty owners. Objections to the latter
| finding We're also filed but overruled. and
| the Columbia Heights Realty Company,
Rosa Wallach and others appealed. The
| chief justice declares that he finds no re-
| versible error in the proceedings, and
affirms the findings.
Lower Court Reversed.
In an opinion by Mr.. Justice Van Ors-
| del the APPELLATE court reversed the judg-
ment of the lower court In the case of
|
| Laundry Company and directed a new
| trial. The plaintiff was employed in the
defendants laundry and caught and in
| jured her hand. in a mangle. At the
| conclusion of her testimony the court of
| its own motion instructed the jury 10
| find for the defendant.
| Justice Van Orsdel holds this action to
| be error. saying the rule to be applied to
| the action of the court is absolute and
| will admit of no exception.
He decides that all the plaintiffs wit
nesses should have been heard. Every
| presumption must be resolved against the
court declares the opinion, when it as
sumes to deprive a litigant Of the right
| to produce competent witnesses in sup
| port of a declaration which, If proved,
would justify a recovery. 1t is unneces-
sary for us to consider in detail the ques-
ton of negligence. except to suggest that
We clearly of the opinion that on the
evidence of the plaintiff as disclosed by
the record. sufficient issue was raised to
warrant the submission of the case to the
jury. On this evidence alone the trial
court committed reversible error in in
structing the jury to return verdict for
the defendant
Sustains University Contention.
Justice Van Orsdel affirmed the action
of the District Supreme Court in the case
| of Hornblower & Marshall against George
| Washington University. The firm sued
| for s1.6O564 for services alleged to have