Spruill v. Crawford, 6258.

• Decision Date: 31 December 1934
• Docket Number: No. 6258.,6258.
• Citation: Spruill v. Crawford, 75 F.2d 522, 64 App.D.C. 118 (D.C. Cir. 1934)
• Parties: SPRUILL v. CRAWFORD.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

64 App. DC 118, 75 F.2d 522 (1934)

SPRUILL v.CRAWFORD.

No. 6258.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Argued December 10, 1934.

Decided December 31, 1934.

Georgia M. Spruill, in pro. per.

E. Barrett Prettyman, Corp.Counsel, and Thos. Gillespie Walsh, Asst. Corp.Counsel, both of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB, VAN ORSDEL, HITZ, and GRONER, Associate Justices.

PER CURIAM.

It appears from the record that on May 6, 1932, the appellant, as plaintiff, filed a declaration in the lower court against appellee, as defendant, charging defendant with "unlawfully taking and detaining" certain described goods and chattels consisting of several hundred articles of furniture and household equipment belonging to plaintiff of the value of $5,000.Plaintiff prayed that the chattels "be taken from the defendant and delivered to her; or, if they are eloigned, that she may have judgment of their said value, and all mesne profits and damages, which she estimates at $5,000, besides costs."

The defendant in his plea alleged that he is the chief clerk, also the property clerk, of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, appointed and acting under section 502 et seq.,title 20, 1929 D. C. Code, p. 234; that on November 24, 1930, the property in question came into his custody as such clerk, and not otherwise, after it had been abandoned on a public sidewalk in the District of Columbia; that the property has since remained in storage save and except certain articles released to plaintiff at her instance and request and receipted for by her; that defendant as property clerk has been ready and willing to release and deliver the property to the rightful and lawful owner thereof; that defendant prays that the property be released and transferred to its rightful and lawful owner, subject, however, to such charges as may be found due for the storage of the same and that plaintiff's suit be dismissed and satisfied without costs to the defendant.

The cause remained at issue without trial until June 9, 1933, when it was dismissed by order of the court for want of prosecution.On August 21, 1933, however, an order was entered setting aside the dismissal of the case and it was restored to the docket.

On November 28, 1933, the defendant filed a motion praying the court to advance the cause for hearing and trial on the ground that the delay and failure of plaintiff to diligently prosecute the...