Evening Star Newspaper, October 4, 1936, Page 15

‘ THE SUNDAY STAR, WASHINGTON, D. C. OCTOBER 4, 1936—PART ONE. A—1S e e e e s e e e s e SUPREME COURT'S DOCKET CROWDED 10 New Deal Cases to Be Passed on at Session Be- ginning Tomorrow. BY JOHN H. CLINE. With 10 important New Deal meas- ures awaiting judicial review, the Su- preme Court will convene for the Fall term tomorrow in an atmosphere con- trasting sharply with the hue and cry of the national political campaign. No special ceremonies are planned for the opening session, the judges being scheduled to file in at the stroke of noon and to proceed at once with routine business. There will be nothing in the pro- cedure even to suggest that a political war is raging, but however determined the court may be to ignore this fact, it cannot escape the political effect of their decisions. The_supposed determination of the New Dealers to abridge the court's powers as a result of the N. R. A, A. A. A and Guffey coal decisions already has been injected into the campaign by Republican orators and the decisions that must be made at this term are expected to stimulate this controversy. Labor Act’s Importance. Perhaps the most important on the long list of New Deal acts awaiting the court’s ruling is the national la- bor relations act, giving workers the right to organize and bargain collec- tively with their employers through representatives of their own choosing. The ruling in this case probably will come through an appeal by the Associated Press from a decision of the Labor Relations Board ordering the reinstatement of a discharged re- porter. The board held he was dis- missed because of his activities in be- half of the American Newspaper Guild, while the Associated Press said the dismissal was besed on ineffi- ciency. Other cases already docketed with the court and awaiting argument and decision are: The railroad labor act, which as- sures the right of collective bargain- ing to railroad workers. The P. W. A. section of the national industrial recovery act, with particular reference to grants for public power plants competing with privately- owned plants. The utility holding company act, Involving Federal power regulation and the dissolution of pyramided hold- ing companies. Farm Mortgage Act. The amended Frazier-Lemke farm | mortgage act. The arms and munitions resolution | permitting the President to prohibit the sale of arms to belligerent na- | tions. | The gold clause resolution abolish- ing obligations to pay in gold. The silver purchase act to build| up the silver reserves and imposing a tax on silver sales. The securities act of 1933 regulating the sale of securities. The Federal communications act ex- tending Federal regulation over tele-; phone and telegraph companies as well as the radio. In some of these cases, only parts of the acts are involved, such as the procedure followed by the administra- tive agency. Other New Deal policies are involved in cases due to come before the court for determination of the legality of State acts. Among these are the New | York unemployment insurance law, the New York and North Carolina | mortgage moratorium laws, the mini- | mum wage law of Washington State and the Texas oil proration law. No important decision is expected | before election day. COURT T ASSIGNMENTS | "Inc., vs. Consolidated Engineering Co.; | Quinn—McCart. | ton—Bogarad, Lutkiewitz. DISTRICT COURT. | The following motions have been | set for hearing Tuesday, October 6. with the understanding that those not | heard Tuesday will be heard Wednes- day, or Thursday if necessary. ° Chief Justice Wheat. “ Wright vs. Wright; attorneys, Mil- ler—Fitzgerald. Tucker vs. Tucker; attorneys, Kauf- man—HefTelfinger. Clark vs. Clark; attorneys, Halpern— McCormick. Harman vs. Dixie Realty Co. et al.; attorneys, Merrick, Harman—Kaplan. | General Brokerage Co. vs. Crosby et . attorneys, Miller—Irelan, jr. Butts vs. Butts; attorneys, McCul- lough, Lebowitz—Rhodes. Sugar vs. Harvard Terrace Develop.; attorneys, Jacobson—Hirshman. Marlin vs. Hoage et al.; attorneys, Long—Simon, Koenigsberger, Young. Parks vs. Parks; attorneys, McCath- ran—Koeflle, Taylor. Bradbury vs. Perry et al.; attorneys, | Brandenburg & Brandenburg. Ellis vs. Ellis; attorneys, stein—Coombe. Martin vs. Martin; attorneys, Gal- lagher, Cowles — Donovan, Seavey, Lanahan. Russell vs. Russell; attorneys, Rover, ~—Segal. Dailey vs. Hoage et al.; lttomeys Halpern—Krouse, Hinman. Indicating Fuse Manufacturing Co vs. Holtzman; attorneys, Jacobi— Townsend. 3 | Ansberry vs. Ansberry; attorneys, Brandenburg & Brandenburg—Ken- nedy, Garnett, Hitz. Appling vs. Hoage et al.; attorneys, Artis—McCabe, Garnett, Krouse. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. vs. Hoage et al.; attorneys, Simon, Koen- igsberger—Garnett, Krouse. Carter vs. The President et al.; torney, Garnett. Hamilton vs. Dern; attorneys, Wain- wright, Claggett — Gernett, Under- ‘wocd. \ Baldwin vs. Inland Waterways Corp.; attorneys, Springston, Shirley— Garnett, Underwood. Schram vs. Dern; attorneys, Wain- wright—Garnett, Underwood. Bradford vs. Dern; attorneys, Wain- wright—Garnett, Underwood. Justice Bailey. Knight vs. District Amusement Corp.; attorneys, Welch, Daily & ‘Welch—McCormick. Horn- at- Piper vs Piper; attorneys, Lyman— | Politz. Tudor City Fourth Unit vs. Vidal; attorneys, Konnan—Munter. Humphries vs. I. T. O. A., Inc., et al; attorneys, Munter—Whiteford, Marshall, Hart. Siebel vs. Georgetown Gas Light Co.; attorneys, Newmyer—Whiteford, Marshall, Hart. Schmidt vs. Chase et al.; attorneys, | Bothoron—Whiteford, Marshall, Hart. Sober vs. Hecht Co.; attorneys, Bolotin — Simon, Koenigsherger & ‘Young. Cohn vs. Dellamonica; attorneys, Priedlander—Simon, Koenigsberger & | per—Turco, De Nunzio. ‘Young. Zimbolist vs. Danzansky; attorneys, ¥ Wood — Simon, Koenigsberger & Young. Henry vs. Leon; attorneys, Shul- man—Newmyer. Grimes vs. Hoches; attorneys, Beach—Gaskins, Shields; Swingle & Swingle. Starr vs. American Newspapers, Inc.; attorneys, Sanders, Childs, etc.— Yeatman. Arnold vs. Hill & Tibbitts, Inc.; attorneys, Shulman—Beach. Berson vs. Lofstrand; attorneys, Bettelman—Welch, Deily & Welch. Frank vs. Lewis; attorneys, Lyman— Welch, Daily & Welch. Blick vs. Mitchel et al; attorneys, Lyman—Frost, Myers & Towers. Bolinger vs. Ryan et al.; attorneys, Beasley—Whiteford, Marshall & Hart. Zook vs. I. T. O. A.; attorneys, Harlow—Whiteford, Marshall & Hart. United States ex rel. Horne-Wilson, attorneys, Mills—Whiteford, Marshall & Hart. Wetmore vs. I. T. O. A, Inc, et al attorneys, Wendell—Whiteford, Mar: shall & Hart. Welch vs. I. T. O. A, Inc. et at- torneys, Wendell—Whiteford, Marshall & Hart. Salmon vs. I. T. O. A. et al.; attor- neys, Quinn, Sasscer, Cipriani—White- ford, Marshall & Hart. Taylor vs. National Trucking - & Storage Co.; attorneys, Adams—Simon, Koenigsberger & Young. Balderson vs. Lustine; Lyman—Rosenfeld. Beale vs. Halpern; attorneys, Sulli- van, Lyman—Simon, Koenigsberger & Young. Klotz ex rel. Mankovitz vs. Prescott- ‘White Corp; attorneys, Sullivan—Ellis, Houghtonr & Ellis. Ward vs. Hecht Co.; attorneys, Mc- Cullough—Simon, Koenigsberger & Young. Nash vs. American Ice Co.; attor- neys, Caywood, Partridge, 3d-sxmon, Koenigsberger & Young. Ward vs. Brooke et al.; attorneys, Lowry—Brashears, Townsend, Beasley. Ferrall vs. Lansburgh & Bro., Inc.; attorneys, McLeish—Newmyer, Bress. Hardt vs. McLaughlin; attorneys, Townsend—Garnett. Walker et al. vs. United States of America; attorneys, Miller—Shea. Parks vs. Hines; attorneys, Miller— Garnett. Earnest vs. United States of Amer- ica; attorneys, Miller—Shea. Cunningham vs. Hines; attorneys, | Hubert—Wilson. Morrow vs. United States Shipping Board Merchant Fleet Corp.; attor- neys, Hamel—Garnett. | Dixon vs. General Taxicab Associa- | tion, Inc.; attorneys, Wendell—Schlos- | berg, Burnett. White vs. Co.: Seal. Paparucolas vs. Cayton; attorneys, Yeatman—Segal. Gallagher vs. Harlem Taxicab Asso- ciation; attorneys. Muller—Politz. Williams vs. Reup et attorneys, McCart—Collins. | Duke vs. Austin; attorneys, Johnson, | | attorneys, Washington Gas Light | attorneys, = Wendell—Yeatman, | In re estate of Benjamin Teplitzky; attorneys, Levin—Herdes. Brody vs. Fillah; attorneys, Hil- | Justice Adkins. King vs. Pitts; attorneys, O'Brien— | Riordan. Curtis, Admnr., vs. Humphries: at- torneys, Wheatley, Butzner—Kirkland, Coombe. Armstrong vs. Columbia Whole- salers, Inc.; attorneys, Dodsonr— | Bailey. Queensboro Corp. vs. Laws; attor- neys, Manning, Quinn, jr.—Pretty-" man, Awalt. Villwock vs. Blundon Co.; attor- neys, Bachrach & Brick—Bauman, Burnett. Flood Gate Boat House, Inc., vs. National Motor Boat Sales, Inc.; at- torneys, Quimby, Fields, Fleicher— Ostmann. | Dietrick vs. Washington Loan & 'rrust Co.; attorneys, Epaminonda, Hnrmnn—Hoover Peter. ‘Wadhams vs. McLean; attorneys, Lambert, Murphy, Hart—Burkinshaw. Dellinger vs. Chore et al; attor- neys, Williams—Lambert. Cassell vs. Howard University; torneys, Baker, Tepper—Hayes. Anastasi vs. Filloramo; attorneys, | Turco—Friedlander, Silverman. Cassell vs. Johnson et al.; attorneys, Tepper—Gordon, Hayes. McCloskey & Co. vs. Louis Perna & Sons, Inc.; attorneys, Baker, Tep- at- Heyman & Bros, Inc, vs. Shaw & Brown Co.; attorneys, Brandenburg & Co—Raflerty. Davey vs. Tranges; attorneys, De- laney, Platt—Brandenburg & Co. Athey vs. Moore; attorneys, Swingle & Swingle—Quinn. Berman et al. Atlantic Gree- found Lines, Inc.; attorneys, Bogo- rad—Quinn. Lewis vs. Capital Transit Co.; at- torneys, Canfield, Flaherty—Bowen & | Kelly. Valiant vs. Capital Transit Co.; torneys, Sanders—Bowen & Kelly. Reynolds us. Capital Investment & Guarantee Co.; attorneys, Johnson, | Sirica. Lyons—Quinn. Watts vs. H. G. Smithy Co.; vs. . attor- neys, Gardiner, Earnest—Seal, Walsh. Booker vs. Capital Transit Co.; at- torneys, Ganaway — West, Folsom, Hamilton; Bowen & Kelly; Dunlop. United States ex rel. Corbin vs. Doyle et al.; attorneys, Cobb, Howard & Hayes—West, Walsh. Pumphrey vs. Distriet of Columbia; attorneys, Horowitz, Friedlander— West, Walsh. Keppel vs. District of Columbia; at- torneys, Smith—West, Walsh. Hazen et al. vs. Gilbert; attorneys, corporation counsel—Wilson. Brams vs. District of Columbis; at- torneys, Helpern—corporation counsel. Gaston vs. Nichols; attorneys, Lemm, Brody—Galloway, Shields. Van Valin vs. Baldi et al.; attorneys, Quigley—Canfield; Lemm & Brody. Justice Luhring. Pugliese vs. Sullivan et al.; attor- neys, Kaufman, Ginetti—Stickney. Gurney vs. Dutch Baker Boy, Inc.; attorneys, Clarke, Abrams—Hapnah. Falls vs. Falls; attorneys, Stickney— Aronoff. Evans vs. Rosendorf; Miller—Kaufmann. attorneys, Fidelity Building & Loan Associa- | attorneys, | tion vs. Alward et al; Borchardt—Linkins. Cochrane vs. Cochrane; Chirieleison vs. National Mineral Co.; attorneys, Brick—Sedgwick. Hall vs. Hall; attorneys, Hinman— Callahan. Harlowe et al. vs. Totten et al; attorneys, Peelle, Lesh, Drain, Barn- ard—Halper, Partridge, Wells, Nord- linger, Lockwood. Brotherhood of Washington Ter- minal Station Porters vs. Washington Terminal Co.; attorneys, Cobb, How- | ard & Hayes—Hamilton & Hamilton. Parks vs. Parks; attorneys, Cobb, Howard & Hayes—Rhodes. Sabatini vs. Sabatini; attorneys, Os- mond—O'Leary. Kloczewski vs. Torre: O'Brien—Walker, Irelan, jr. Haney vs. Esunas; O’Brien—Tepper. Schenkel vs. Munter—Clarke. Johnson vs. Clarke—Biggins. vs. Orndorff et al.; attorneys, attorneys, Schenkel; attorneys, Johnson; attorneys, attor- attorneys, | Turco, De Nunzio—King & Nordlinger. | neys, Hudson & Hudson—Stetson, Schaefer vs. Schaefer; attorneys, Wendell—Hudson. Marshall vs. Smith; attorneys, Hud- son—Hill. Powell vs. Powell; attorneys, Gray— Boardman. Rapeer vs. Rapeer; attorneys, Boardman—Hudson. Williams vs. Willlams; attorneys, Boardman—Shenos. ‘Moran vs. Michael et al.; attorneys, Hill, Ross & Hill—Richardson, Camp- bell, Cashill vs. Cashill; attorney, Hill, jr. Moran vs. Michael et al.; attorneys, afll. Ross & Hill—Richardson, Camp- 11. Sioux Falls Investment and Se- curity Co. vs. King; attorneys, Coe— Keefer. Estate of Gustav Werner; attorneys, Quimby—Jackson. Justice Letts. Jacobi vs. Robertson; attorneys, P. P.—O'Donnell, Hostetler. | ‘Williams vs. Southern Railway Co.; | attorneys, Cobb, Howard & Hayes— Hamiltor & Hamilton. Sabit vs. Jaffe; attorneys, Myers— Caywood, Partridge, 3d. Stuart vs. Stuart; attorneys, nett—Cusick. Hohensee vs. Independent Oil Co., Inc.; attorneys, Quinn—Lynch. Candeliere vs. Paiano; attorneys, Bonuso—Monk. Crivilla vs. Gordon; attorneys, Rano & Miller—Ballinger. | Sears vs. Pioneer Novelty Distrib- | uting Corp.; attorneys, Lodge, Dona- hue—Lichtenberg. Moran vs. Myers; attorneys, Kist- | ler—Edelin. Allen vs. Meisel Tire Co., Inc.; at- | torneys, Edelin—Lichtenberg. Buccolo vs. Metropolitan Life In- |surance Co.; attorneys, Douglas, | Obear, Morgan, etc.—Minor, Gatley | & Drury. | Harris vs. Y. M. C. A; | Wood, Paregol — Hogan, ‘Jonen Harson & Guider. Travelers Insurance Co. vs. Diffen- attorneys, Donovan, Douglns Obear, etc. McDowell vs. Keyton: Douglas, Obear, etc.—Hogan, attorneys, Don- Craighill—Rafferty. bsch attorneys, megle & Swfingle——‘ Mendelsohn, Goldstein—Halper. Eury et al. vs. cnwtord. Inc.: at- torneys, Rhodes, Rhodes—Halper. Prager vs. Freund; attorneys, ‘Thomas—Browning. Boteler - vs. Rogers; Brown—Richards. Totten vs. Barnard et al.; attorneys, Duvall—Hoover. Lewis, etc., vs. Fasnacht et al.; at- torneys, Springston—Ford, Kaplan. Boyle vs. Rollins; attorneys, Part- low—Politz. Gusack vs. District Amusement Corp.; attorneys, Yasme:—Clephane & Latimer, Hall. Fearno vs. Frank; vita—P. P. Johnson vs. Gruman Co.; Branson—Doherty. Jackson vs. Beasley; ‘Yasmer—Spivey. Aspinwall vs, Merchants Bank. Inv. Co.; attorneys, McKenney, Flannery, attorneys, attorneys, Mino- attorneys, attorneys, Oden vs. Goshen et al.; attorneys, Bolotin, Brown—Sheflerman. Lincoln Investment Corp. vs. Glen- nan; attorneys, Hilland—Glennan. Baird vs. Sinclair; " attorneys, Kremer—Mathews & Trimble. Justice O’Donoghue. Diamond vs. Aetna Life Insurance Co.; attorneys, Smith—Arth, Ganse. Forsberg et al. vs. Hayward; attor- | neys, Ganse, Nichols—Harman, Sizer. Hayward vs. Forsberg; attorneys, Harman—Ganse, Nichols. Biggs vs. Biggs; attorneys, Miller— Merrick. Elsberg vs. Associated Invest. Co.; attorneys, Harman—8ill. United States ex rel. Maneely vs. | McCloskey & Co.; attorneys, Ward— Kelly & Nicolaides. Federal American Co. vs. Hardee; attorneys, Tobriner, Graham, Brez— | Thompson, Ward. Hardee vs. Jenkins et al.; attorneys, | Thompson, Ward—Hammack. | United States ex rel. Bethlehem | Steel Co. vs. McShain Co., Inc.; at- torneys, Wilmer, Hatch, Levity & Konopka, Rigby—Kelly & Nicolaides. Shelton vs. Shelton; attorneys, O’'Brien—Clark. Bucolo vs. Pure Food Store, Inc ot al; attorneys, Hayden—Gittlem: ARTHUR JORDAN'S ZENITH World-Famous Radios Large Street Floor Display of Models Model 5-5.15/—5 Tubes ZENITH 5-S-151—5 Tubes. Tunes Ameri- can and Foreign Stations; police, amateur, aviation. ships at sea. 10-inch Electro-Dy- namlic Speaker. Continuous Type Tone Con- trol, high. Split-Second Re-locater. 42 inches $50.95 NO MONEY DOWN LONG TIME TO PAY ARTHUR JORDAN PIANO COMPANY 1239.G Street - Cor. 13 NW. THERE'S A TONICinTHETANG of OCTOBER At CHALFONTE HADDON HALL Now by the sea the air is laden with healthful- ness. It is the season to build up for winter. You need the refreshment found within these hotels too. Wholesome, tasty meals. Sound slumber. Health baths. Music and varied amusement. Come soon, it all costs surprisingly little. Leeds and Lippincott Ce. ATLANTIC CITY You get INSTANT HEAT WITH A HUMPHREY RADIANTFIRE Clean, convenient, quick gas heat at the toudn of a match . .. only when it is needed . . . at only a few pennies’ cost an hour. Saves running the furnace all day when heat is required only on chilly mornings | Radiants and evenings. $8.75 up. For repln.ument in all types of Radiantfires. 20¢ ., EpGcAR MORRIS SALEs Co. 712 13th St. N.W. Gas and Electric Appliances NAtional 1031 Robinson vs. Hungerford; attorneys,| General Motors Acceptance Corp. vs. Kraskin; attorneys, Sill—Elliott, Allen vs. Lambert; attorneys, Lam- bert, Hart—Doyle, Thuee. Piotiowies vs. Petrovich; attorneys, Friedman—Peter, Keefer. Summers vs. Shaw; attorneys, Bahr —Schweinhaut. Cooper vs. Tepper; attorneys, Bran- son—Levine. Donahue vs. Donahue; attorneys, McGann—Carmody. Quill vs. Quill; attorneys, Davis— Friedlander. Lodge 21, American Federation Government Employes et al. vs. Amer=y ican Pederation of Government Em- ployes et al; attorneys, Acheson, ‘Westwood—Ogburn, Reyman. Partello vs. Partello; attorneys, Stearman—Libby. English vs. Pioneer Novelty Distrib- uting Co.; attorneys, Richardson— Lichtenberg. In re Sallie A. Franklin; attor- neys, Pearlstein—Willis. Estate of Henry L. Black; attorneys, Baker—Stohlman, Cassidy, jr. Mancewicz vs. Mancewicz; neys, Ford—Sitnick. ‘Waring vs. Jones et Cook—McCabe. attor- attorneys, vs. Kraskin; International Harvestes Co.; neys, Strauch & Hoffman—Boyden, ‘Wright, Weaver—Arth, Woodard. Offutt—Smith. Neudecker. torneys, Plowman, Burdick—Price. Neudecker—Turco. Neudecker—Tedrow. Conlon—Schwartz, Heilman. Moran—Thompson, Ward. General Motors Acceptance Corp. ! rule. Justice Cox. Automotive Engineering Corp. vs. attor- | Stanton vs. Stanton; rule. Kosters vs. Hoover; attorneys, Carozza vs. Del Balso, Inc.; rule. ‘Thackston vs. Thackston; attorneys, Johnson- vs. Swartz; rule, Nolan vs. dolan; sttorneys, Lynch— Rinaldi vs. Rinaldi; rule. Stewart Calvert Co. vs. Ickes; at- Rothschild vs. Masoero vs. Browne; rule, Masoero; attorneys, | Ward vs. Ward; rule. Astmann vs. Astmann; attorneys, | Cullinane vs. Cullinane; rule. Castor vs. Washington; attorneys, | Tucker vs. Tucker; rule. ‘Young vs. Solomon; attorneys, Darr, | ington International Madden vs. Braswell; attarneys, Dixon, Admx., vs. Capitai Trypt | Friedlander, Siiverman. | Co.; attorneys, Lane, Leeman—Jones, DIPLOMATS TO ATTEND OPENING CEREMONIES Formal Exercises Will Be Held at Students’ House This Afternoon. Many members of the diplomatic corps are expected to attend the formal opening of the new Interna- tional Students’ House, 1708 New Hampshire avenue, from 4 to 6 p.nr. today. The house was a gift of the Wash- Club, having been presented to the organization at its annual banquet last Spring. It fulfills the long-felt need for a meet- ing place here for students from all countries, said Miss Naomi Pekmezian, club president. Seventeen students from as many nations now maintain permanent residences at the club. Alexander Smith & Sons’ Broadloom Carpet “Takes the Floor” with 21 new Tru-Tone colors—that will give your rooms—and your entire house the smart individuality you'll like. Broadloom Carpets walls apart.” "“push your There is a graphic illusion in carpeting with Broad- loom which lends generous propor- tions to the roam and spreads a colorful foundation for the furnish- ings that can be most effectively achigved through the variety of- fered in Tru-Tone shades. The solid ¢ rich pile, th colors” — sa lutely with T olors, the luxuriously e adaptability to any room and any service are argu- ments which have won for Broad- « loom popular recognition. ander Smith G Sons' “Nearly right won't do in carpet Alex- Slogan— feguards you abso- ru-Tones. 27 and 36 inch for halls and stairs and 9, 12, 15 and 18 foot widths for rooms. Four featured grades— . $4.25-%550-6.50-'8.50 sq yd Beautiful New Domestic Rugs You'll find an assortment that is very large in variety of weaves. Pat- terns and designs suitable for all usages—but confined to those makes which are recognized as superior—with prices that reflect the Sloane ‘control. Axminster Rugs—9x12—27.50-*35-*44 Plain Tru-Tone, Domestic Orientals, Modern, Classic and Shaggy Tweed Effects. 9x12 size— 9x12 Moss Grain 9x12 Phain Broadloom_ Charge Accounts Gladly opened, with settlements er- ranged for your convenience. $2750 to $138 _$360 _$340 912 Wilton: 9x12 Shaggy Tweed S Courtesy Parking While shopping here, park in the Copitol Garoge at our expense, W. & J. SLOANE 711 Twelfth Street DI. 7262