DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Plaintiff in Error, v. Flora G. STEINBERG, Defendant in Error; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Plaintiff in Error, v. Edith W. ELY, Defendant in Error; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Plaintiff in Error, v. Madeline PADGETT, Defendant in Error; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Plaintiff in Error, v. Edna Ellis HILTON, Defendant in Error

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Plaintiff in Error, v. Flora G. STEINBERG, Defendant in Error. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Plaintiff in Error, v. Edith W. ELY, Defendant in Error. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Plaintiff in Error, v. Madeline PADGETT, Defendant in Error. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Plaintiff in Error, v. Edna Ellis HILTON, Defendant in Error. Court of Appeals of District of Columbia. Argued January 7, 1929. Reargued February 4, 1929. Decided February 25, 1929. Motion of Second Rehearing Denied December 2, 1929. Nos. 4804-4807. W. W. Bride and F. H. Stephens, both of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff in error. Paul E. Lesh, of Washington, D. C., for defendants in error. Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices. [MAJORITY — ROBB, Associate Justice.] ROBB, Associate Justice. These are ■writs of error to the municipal court, and involve the question just determined in No. 4803, District of Columbia v. Newman, 59 App. D. C. 163, 37 F.(2d) 444. For reasons there stated, the judgment in each case is reversed, with costs, and the causes are remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Reversed.