Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1892-10-25

I believe II WIS, when he erected his
house, the plaintiff was livlng On the
lot, and made no objection 70
II. There IL conflict. Plaintiff states
that he wnA away ut Deep Creek, that
the building was not commenced when
be went away, and that he knew
nothing Of ~ until he returned, when
the men were shingllng the building
As 20 that there iaa decided conflict In
the evidence; but there seems to be no
substantial conflict ~ to MI. SpafIord
knowing OF these old lines. lie knew
that hesIsd put up fence on the old
line himself; and, ~ ne slntea, the iu-
dloations were that the parties ON the
respective lots had occupied with re-
spect to that line, nnd they conveyed 20
him. with that knowledge ne chose
10 take down this mans fence mud put
HIS building some two feet aud n half
ON the PLAINTIFF lot; ne then moved
hia fence about foot Ok thlrleon inches
farther west, taking In oil, | infer, fully
two and half feet. he Gid that with
his eyes open. lie must have under.
stood that the other man had been
claiming that property, aud It was
necording to his claim NJ he made II
when he put up the fence.
The case, think, IL clearly with tho
plaintiff, aud judgment will DO entered
accordingly.
TWO DIVORCE PETITIONS.
The divorce suit OF Elizabeth Arid
W., John Airi was filed In the Office VI
the Third district court this morning.
The PARTIES Intormarried In this city
on April 18th, 1880, aud there arc two
children issue OF tho marriage l.
liam, nged / /, ana John, aged g. Plain
IN ailege. that for mcre thau year
mast her husband has been an hsbilual
| druukard, IN during that p1riOi has
wlliully neglected 10 provide herself
md children with the common neccs.
snrles OF lie. Consequently, they
have hnt TO depend uuOu the charity
OF friends. Plaintiff further says
thai tho house In which she
ami the children now reside
wac purchagsd with money belonging
to her, and mt the time Of its purchase,
the ue enuaut, without her knowledge
or consent, causei the deed conveying
the premises to be made ~ him. since
then no had por8is,ently refused &c
convey the property 10 her. IN Rddi'
ton 10 this, lhe wife asserts that hey
huahand II the owner Of a morse, carl
aud harness.und other persona effects,
valued together at about $3.50. She
prays that he bo restrained by order o
court from now disppsing OF che real
es,RIe as well as the other property
named.
S. p. Arms,rong Is the plaintiffs At
tOTnuy.
AnnAbell Wade W.. Ebert Waic 4.
tue titie Of another divorce suit placed
on the tiles Of the Third district cour
today.
These parties were married in Thu
city on January 18th, 1882, there being
one child, girl, named GOldie-bofr
In November 1887. The defendant u
wherlwfight aud wagon maker ant
the plaintiff alleges that since January
lst Of tho present year he has who'll.
failed to provide for her and the child
or to contribute anything toward theii
support. They aro therefore, sne says,
dependent upon her own labor and
the charity OF friends. In August las
the defendant loft tho Territory, de
clarlng that he should not again re
turn.
ORDERS ny JUDGE ZANE TODAY.
In the case OF Verlna Schimm ct nj
vs. the Utah Lodge No. !, ct al, tn
demurrer 10 amended complain
wns argued and submitted.
ID. W. Rench VI. HArmel Pratt ct =
The writ Of review 10 this case Wi
argued and the matter submitted.
THU appeal case Of Isaac Dehl VI
tho Tribune Publishing Go. was dill
missed on motion OF counsel.
5. II. Marks ct al va. Margare
Tuckett ct al. a jury was waived on IN
hearing Of this case, the name OF Geo. "
willis, ns Assignee, being now gubsi
tuted 'or the plaintiff Marks. IL wa
ON account for goods supplied. judi
ment was given for the plaintiff 70
S7ll.90.
The cAse OF Frank T. Cochrane "
@. A. Bussohe was continued by col
sent.
GRAND JURY.
The grand Jury have bsen in sessio
again today. II Is rnmored that tn,
VIII not b. discharged by the Cou
until late periUdoi the present tern
though, OF course, their work VIII az
keep them In harness all that time.