Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1892-06-01
BATTLE OF The GIANTS!
Justice LOchris as Umpire In The
TusvarOra Game.
THE PLAINTIFF WINS THE DAY.
Defendants Mnst tive Up Those Books
and Records or stump Up
SIS. and Costs.

gave his decision In the door case, F"
which was tried In his cour, yesterday
afternoon, and reported at length In
that days NIws.
Following is a verbatim copy Of the
decision
TfRRIORY OF UTAH,
County Of salt Lake,
In the Justice Court In aud Tor the
city aud county Of Salt Lake. Re-
fore Hon. Z. Lochric, Justice OF the
| Peace.
II. r. Duke, plaintiff, vs. A. O..
Norrcll and Eliss A. smith, defend-
ants. opinion Of the Court.
This ease was commenced by the
plainun Ming his complaint ON the
oh day " May, A. u. 1902. In his
complaint he alleged that with
other gentlemen he was elect.
ed member OF tho body OF
individuals known as the Territorial
committee OF the political Organization
called the Democratic party Of the Ter
rltOfy u Utab; that he was secretary
Of the body OF whish he was member,
and as such secretary wa, entitled to
tho custody OF the books aud records o!
tho corimittee; that the defendants
claim the right 10 hold and retain the
custody Of the books and records Of the
committee; that they had the possession
OF the same that the plaintiff
had made due demand Of the defend.
ants for said books and records Of
the Territorial committee Of the
Democratic party Of Utah covering the
years succeeding III. year 1851, but
that the demand had been re used, and
that tho value OF the documents sought
to be recovered waatho sum OF $1,000.
Afterwards tue defendants appeared
la the action and filed their demurrer
TO tho complaint. Upon the hear.
ing Of the demurrer the sole
question before the court was
as to whether the complaint stated
good cause Of action. This was dc.
clded by the court In the Affirmative.
The defendants then announced that
they did not desire TO ME an answer,
but that they would take an appeal.
Theroupon the court sot the case for
trial, which settling was made for the
2sth day Of May, 1892, In order 10 en-.
able tho plaintin TO introduce proof
sustaining the allegation Of his said
complaint. On the last day
named the defendants appeared
and requested an Adjournment
until Tuesday, the Slst day OF May,
1909, nj O'Clock .. M, which adlourn-
ment was granted. Tine case came on
for hearing on the day last named, and
tho plaintiff proceeded 10 introduce his
proof. At tue request VI the plaintiff
the court had issued It's subpoena du
ces fedtm requiring tho defendants to
appear and bring with them the books
aud records OF the Democratic Terri.
toIial Committee OF Utah. Upon the
hearing they failed 10 produce tho
same, each alleging that tn, documents
had passed beyond their hands.
The defendant smith testified that
no became n Democrat In May or
June, 1891, and In the month OF June
was made the secretary Of n COMMITTEES
which he terme the advisory com.
mittec OF the Democratic party anu
Afterwards was elected secretary OF
what he claims a. the Territorial com.
mittsc Of the party. He declared that
no books nor papers were ever turned
over to him, but tnat he opened an en-
tlrcly new sot Of books and
records, which books anu records
he had sent 10 n man named Dunbar
In the city OF Chicago, as he stated, for
his party, and before the subpoena du
ces tcqyDl had been served upon him,
hut after he had been served with
notice that no was one VI the defend.
ants In this case.
The defendant Norrell testified that
he was n Democrat and member OF
the Democratic party; that he attended
the convention Of the party that wa.
held at Ogden IN May, 1855, and
was there elected member OF
IN. Democratic Territorial com.
mlttce; that the plaintiff Duk.
was elected n member at the same
time; that imp,e ilRtely after the con.
vention the committee assembled and
elected J. A. Merritt chairman aud dc.
fendaLt Norrell as lts secretary; that
he acted as such secretary until June,
| 1891; that he never realgne1 his ofilce,
but that since June, 1891, did not act
In that capacity; that In June, 1891,
u convention was held In Salt Lake
City OF the Democratic party which
elected new committee, and that that
convention claimed TO be the Demo.
cratic convention; aud that none Of the
members Of the committee elected nj
Ogden In the year lssS hst ever re.
signed.
Several other witnesses were sworn
by the plaintiff, the eiiect OF the tosti.
mony being that the Democratic party
was organized In this Territory about
twenty years ago; that II held it,
conventions once In four years, and
that its Territorial committee was
elected quadrrnnially and that the
com nitt-e.men held office for
fOur yeaa and unsil their sue.
cessors were el-c'sd; aud that at
tn Democratic convention held In
Ogden, In 1858, committee was
elected for four years, the plaintifi
Duke being one Of that number; that
said committee had never resigned.
Also, that IN the sphng OF the present
year u meeting OF the Dom Icratic com.
mittee was called by :. A. Merritt, In
Salt Lake CITY, aud one elias A.
Smith, one OF the Defendants In this
case, signed his name ~ secretary;
that the plalntiii with other gentlemen
IA person and by proxy, who were
elected mem Iern Of the committee at
the sud Ogden convention OF
1855, attended that meeting AMI
sought recognition from the Chair.
man y, A. Merritt which rocOgni
ton was refused; nnd that lhureupUu
they announced that meeting II the
committee would be- held immediate
AZ n place then named. nnat they a.,
somblrd and Hllou such vacancies q,
/ ! ann. ur...1 aff..N lN,l. tE.F4.. AkTlllt..