United States v. Interstate Properties

• Decision Date: 18 February 1946
• Docket Number: No. 8945.,8945.
• Citation: 153 F.2d 469,80 US App. DC 392
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. INTERSTATE PROPERTIES, Inc., et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

80 US App. DC 392, 153 F.2d 469 (1946)

UNITED STATES v. INTERSTATE PROPERTIES, Inc., et al.

No. 8945.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia.

Argued December 10, 1945.

Decided February 18, 1946.

Mr. Ray L. Jenkins, Assistant United States Attorney, of Washington, D. C., with whom Messrs. Edward M. Curran, United States Attorney, and Charles B. Murray, Assistant United States Attorney, both of Washington, D. C., were on the brief, for appellant. Mr. Bernard Margolius, Assistant United States Attorney, of Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellant.

Mr. Edmund D. Campbell, of Washington, D. C., for appellee Interstate Properties, Inc. Mr. Hugh H. Obear, of Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellee Interstate Properties, Inc.

Mr. John H. Burnett, of Washington, D. C., for appellee Thomas B. Lawler.

Mr. Jacob W. Block, appellee, pro se.

Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and EDGERTON and WILBUR K. MILLER, Associate Justices.

WILBUR K. MILLER, Associate Justice.

This appeal by the United States challenges the correctness of the action of the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia in sustaining a demurrer to an indictment which charged three defendants with manslaughter. The accused were Interstate Properties, Inc., a corporation, Thomas B. Lawler, vice president of Interstate Properties, Inc., and "engaged actively in the management of its affairs," and Jacob W. Block.

The indictment is lengthy, but the allegations of its paragraphs, which we number for convenience, may be summarized as follows:

1. On and after October 1, 1940, the corporation owned a four-story brick building in the District of Columbia. It "did then and there lease said property" to Jacob W. Block for use as a rooming house. With the knowledge and consent of the corporation and its vice president, Lawler, Block sublet the premises to roomers and "did use, rent, control, operate, supervise, and manage said premises" as a rooming house, and collected rent from his tenants.

2. From October 1, 1940, until April 24, 1944, the three defendants, "jointly and severally, did use, keep, maintain, manage, operate, control, and supervise" the premises as a rooming house; and by so doing "did have and assume towards said premises, tenants and occupants of the said premises, a legal duty to use reasonable care to keep and maintain said premises in a condition reasonably safe and appropriate for the use, comfort and safety" of the roomers.

3. From October 1, 1940, until April 24, 1944, the three defendants, jointly and severally, were under a duty and obligation to the roomers "to observe and comply with all orders, rules, regulations, and ordinances duly and lawfully enacted and promulgated, relating to the use, occupancy and safety of said building, and for the protection and safety" of the roomers, particularly "the Building Code and the Elevated Code" of the District of Columbia.

4. During the same period, the three defendants, jointly and severally, unlawfully permitted on the premises a dumb-waiter, shaft and hoistway, four feet square, extending from the basement to the roof. The shaft was made of lumber. The three defendants, jointly and severally, permitted the shaft to be used as a receptacle for trash. Under the law and regulations, the dumb-waiter and the shaft were required to be of fire-resistive construction, but through the unlawful negligence and carelessness of the three defendants, the same were not of fire-resistive construction but of inflammable material.

5. The law required that there be an adequate fire escape on the front part of the building, but the three defendants, jointly and severally, failed to provide such fire escape.

6. The three defendants, jointly and severally, and unlawfully, failed to provide adequate protection against fire for the safety of one Audrey M. McNeely; failed to cause the dumb-waiter and shaft to be of fire-resistive construction; permitted the shaft to be used as a receptacle for paper and trash; and failed to provide necessary fire escapes. By reason of these actions of the three defendants a fire started in the dumb-waiter and shaft on April 23, 1944, which burned the part of the building occupied by Audrey M. McNeeley, at which time she received burns of which she died on April 28, 1944.

A joint indictment may be found where the same evidence as to the act which constitutes the crime applies to all the persons indicted, and several persons may be indicted jointly for offenses arising wholly out of the same joint act.¹

Initially, this indictment charges the violation by the defendants of their alleged joint duty to use reasonable care to maintain the...