Evening star., 1934-06-27
RECRETFUL COURT
FORCED TO DECREE
WOMAN'S POVERTY
TechnicaIity Holds Mrs.
Darby to Note on Which
Name Was Forged.
"BLINDNESS" IN RULING
DEPLORED BY MINORITY
Husband of Verdict's Victim in
Jail for Crime for Which
She Pays More.

Mrs. Bessie D. Darby. 3510 Macomb
street, must pay Sl2,324 note, to
which her name was forged, because
majority of the Court of Appeals
decided today to follow the strict rules
of legal procedure despite a protest
from two of its members that Justice
cannot be so blind"
The three majority members of the
appellate court decided decision by
District Supreme Court Justice Jen-
nings Bailey in favor of the Mont
gomery County National Bank of
Rockville must stand because Mrs.
Darbys attorney, Walter B. Guy,
failed to move for judgment in her
favor at the trial and take an excep-
ton if the motion should be denied.
The husband. John Gardner Darby,
was an assistant cashier at the bank.
The promissory note. bearing his sig
nature and what purported to be that
of his wife, was presented by him to
the bank.
Wife Denies Signature.
At the trial of the suit on the note,
he was asked whether the signature
on the note was his wifes and refused
to answer on the ground that he
might incriminate himself by doing
SO. He later was charged with being
short in his accounts. pleaded guilty
and was sent to jail. At the trial,
which was held without jury. Mrs.
Darby denied the signature on the
note was hers.
In its opinion, the majority of the
court said
That the result is one of serious
hardship to appellant Mrs. Darby
may not be denied. nor can we lose
sight of the fact that our decision
confirms a judgment against her
which. in the light of the facts shown
in the certificate of evidence the
bank was not entitled to have. and
if We felt we we're at liberty to do so.
we should unhesita tingly order a new
trial
High Court Stand Cited.
"But in view of the emphatic and
consistent adherence by the Supreme
Court to the rule that a general find
Ing Of the trial court is. in the ab-
sence of a motion for Judgment and
exceptions. conclusive upon all mat
tiers Of fact, we feel we must adhere
to our former decision"
In a previous decision. the Court
of Appeals refused to order a new
trial on the same grounds
In his dessenting opinion Associate
Justice Van Orsdel pointed out:
The only thing lacking to put the
record in proper form. for which de-
fendant should not be penalized, and
wholly due to the negligence of her
counsel, was the failure to move for
Judgment at the conclusion of the
trial-followed, of course, by exception
If it was refused
The note sued upon as an exhibit
was before the court in the re-
argument of this case and a COM
parison of the alleged signature of
the defendant thereon with her true
signature to the affidavit of defense.
and the letter introduced by plaintiff
bank. diScloses to the inexpert. un-
x
forgery. 1t is not surprising that the
husband refused to testify that it was
her signature for fear of elf-incrimi-
nation; yet. due to a technical over
sight of her lawyer, her estate is to
be swept away and a court. con-
vinced of the injustice is helpless in
the exercise of its broad judicial dis
cretion to ignore this technical blunder
and give this defendant a fair chance
to protect her home by simply grant
ing her a new trial
Holds Burden Excessive.
The lasting humility imposed upon
defendant and her innocent children
by criminal husband and father i'm
poses sufficient burden upon them
without adding to their total impov-
erishment through his criminal act.
Can it be that justice is so blind that
an insignificant technical error estops
a court of Justice from extending the
relief here so convincingly de-
manded?"
Contending the record filed in pur-
suance of the appeal contains sufh-
cient material to review the matter on
its merits, Associate Justice Hitz said
but the opinion of the court holds
that this cannot be done. because it
was not Sanctif1ed by the proper rhe-
torical ritual
And this" he added. because the
counsel did not say I except before
he said 1 appeal though it was
clearly intended and understood at the
time by the judge and the counsel
that the appeal so taken necessarily
included an exception to the judgment
so announced, as the greater includes
the less.
This is putting too high value on
making two bites of a cherry. And the
denial of a review here of a Judgment
acknowledged to be wrong here be-
cause the trial court and counsel. in a
common effort to dispatch business,
omitted futile formula of words. is
to sacrifice the substance of justice to
the shadow
Mrs. Darby was represented on the
appeal by Attorney Lucien Mercier.