The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1892-05-10
PROVO
INTERESTING COURT DOINGS.
Hawley's Damage suit Not Yet Decided-Pro-
eeedings of the CITY Council

HaWley's Damage suit Not Yet Decided-Pr0-
ceedings of the CITY Council
In the First district court yesterday forenoon
the case of II. w. Hawley VS.. the Corey Bros.
s. Co. was continued Mr.. Hawley gave testi-
mony showing how he had been damaged by be-
ing thrown out of his contract in leasing pro-
perty and being forced to accept another con
tract on which he lost about $1,000. This con-
tract would in his estimation have realized him
q good profit.
John T. Flood, a railroader of life experience,
stated that the work which MIR. Hawley and his
men were to perform was of q character which
would have been very profitable. The fills an
cuts were easily graded, and at the same time
they were of rock and gravel which rated high.
The contract was sood one and should have
realized Mr.. Hawley good round sum. The
witness gave a full description of the soil and
situation at the place where the contract was
to be performed, he having cone work in the
same locality.
Mr.. Black gave similar testimony in
estimating the amount of damage done
George w. Nickel VS.. b, b. Stringham; de-
murrer confessed and twenty days given in
which to answer.
People VS.. Eugene DeMott: order made to
discharge the defendant upon his own recog-
niZance.
James Il. Wallis, formerly editor of the Provo
Dispatch but now with the Ogden Daily Post
spent Sunday in Provo and returned yesterday
TO his new field of labor. He is well satisfied
with the Junction city and the paper with which
he is Identified will ind his services OF great
! value.
George Waterman and Hugh G. Veal. for
merly Of Great Britain, were admitted to citl-
Z5nship
Testimony was continued for Mr. Hawlsy in
his case against Corey Brothers and plaintiff
rested.
non suit was moved for by Mr.. Kimball for
| the defendants on the ground that the quantity
and quality OF the work had not been testified
| to ana the specifications not been given. Mo-
ton was overruled and the judge threw in that
the plaintiff was certainly enti led to some dam
ages whether the specifications had all been
made or not.
Mr.. Sutherland then asked the Judge to in
| struct the jury to return verdict for nominal
| damages as the exact amount had not been
proven. This the judge refused to do. The
| attorney then stated that he would attempt to
| prove that no contract had ever been made.
That Mr.. Hawley looked over the work and
! asked for figures which he wished to submit to
j. s. Black. The bookkeeper made out fig
ureS which the plaintiff look for contract.
They would also prove that Mr.. Haw-
! ley did not come to do the work and
the contract was let to Larsen & Co.
who performed it at loss, the work being of
character which could not realize anything to
the contractors under the terms on which it
was let
The whole contract amouted to S15.2i4. 80 less
than the amount sued for and could not be done
only at a loss.
Warren Coray testified to having met Mr..
Hawley at RaValley last May one year ago and
looked over work the Great Northern rail-
way, among which was the work in controversy
Mr.. HawleY finally concluded to take some of
! outfit was seen. This was to be forthcoming
| May %, when the work was to be commenced
provided he got there in time otherwise the
contract would be re-let. The regular written
contracts was refused him, but he was furnished
| memorandum of prices which he wished to
show Mr.. Black.