Hammond v. District of Columbia, 1884.

• Decision Date: 17 December 1956
• Docket Number: No. 1884.,1884.
• Citation: 127 A.2d 554
• Parties: Eleanor HAMMOND, Appellant, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellee.
• Court: D.C. Court of Appeals

127 A.2d 554

Eleanor HAMMOND, Appellant, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellee.

No. 1884.

Municipal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Argued November 5, 1956.

Decided December 17, 1956.

Wesley S. Williams, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Richard W. Barton, Asst. Corporation Counsel, with whom Chester H. Gray, Corporation Counsel, Milton D. Korman, Principal Asst. Corporation Counsel, and Hubert B. Pair, Asst. Corporation Counsel, were on the brief, for appellee.

Before ROVER, Chief Judge, and HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges.

ROVER, Chief Judge.

Appellant was charged with occupying a building for human habitation which had been condemned in accordance with Code 1951, Supp. IV, § 5-618. She pleaded not guilty.

At the trial on August 7, 1956, the government produced evidence of condemnation of the building on July 9, 1952, and of personal service of notice of condemnation on appellant and the affixing of a copy of this notice to the building on the same date. The notice stated that human occupancy of the building would be unlawful after July 26, 1952. The approved statement of proceedings and evidence recites that the District adduced "detailed evidence concerning the almost innumerable reasons why the building was condemned and the continuous efforts over the past four years of building inspectors and numerous other District of Columbia officers and employees to have the conditions which caused the building to be condemned to be corrected or the building vacated and razed." Photographs were introduced in evidence showing the distressing condition of the condemned building. It was established that appellant had lived in the building continuously since the time it was condemned until the time of trial and that her possessions, furniture and household articles were in the building. he government rested its case, whereupon counsel for appellant "stated to the Court that there was no sense in taking up the time of the Court further and that he was satisfied his client was guilty. He stated also that he had viewed the building and that it was the worst place he had ever seen in his life."¹

The court inquired of appellant if she had anything further to say and she testified that she had lived in the building continuously since before it was condemned up to the time of the trial and that some of the conditions which had caused the building to be condemned had been remedied, but because she was unable to afford it other conditions had not been corrected.

The court found the appellant guilty but continued the case and during the interval visited the premises before imposing sentence of $150 or 30 days in jail. This appeal followed.

Counsel for appellant in this court did not represent her at the trial. While he asserts in his brief that the real and sole point on appeal is that the finding is contrary to the evidence and to the weight of the evidence, he apparently abandons that ground and rests his...