Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1892-06-29
THIRD DISTRICT COURT.
: veral Important suits filedi A
Question Of Contract.

In this court q. NJ. Arnold has filed
suit against A. l.. Williams ct al. for
$1,000 and interest, claimed to he due
ON two promlssory notes OF $1,000 and
81, 900 respectively. Said notes were
secured by mortgage on certain real
estate, IN which the National bank Of
tho Republic aud others claim an In
tercst, and the court is asked to make
the usual decree OF sale.
Ther,se Gebeau has filed q suit for
divorce against her husband, IT. A.
Gebcau. She and the defendant were
married In tho State Of Now York In
1862, and lived together as man and
wife for twenty-three yesrs; that dur
ing that period twelve children were
born to them, nine OF whom are now
living, the youngcs, being n girl Of
eight years; that In 1855 the defend'
ant deserted her, and has since con.
tinued 10 live separate from her with
out sufficient cause. Petitioner asks
the custody OF her minor children AMI
such other relief NJ the court may
grant.
Auerbach Bros. has brought suit
against A. h. Hall for the sum Of
s2B8.70 alleged TO he due for money ad.
vanced anu paid between the lst and
g7th Of June. Attachment proceed
ings were alse begun. Hall IL the man
who was arrested n few days ago on =
charge Of forgery.
Suit ha. been brought In the Third
District Court against tue Eureka Hill
Mining Company by Gus. Erickson, n
former employ. OF the defendants. The
| claim N for $40, alleged 10 be due un.
der certain contract Tor labor which,
| while not performed, would have been
performed had this delendaEts allowed
| II. Erickson alleges that prior n and
upon tho ID day Of February, 1890, he
was In the employ OF the defendants
at their mine In the Eureka mining
| district. ON the date mentioned he
| met with nm accident which necessi.
tatcd the Amputation Of an arm. 10
prevent an action for damages the
company maize IA agreement Wilt
him substantially NJ follows; Thgt
they would get him an artificial arm
, pnd u suit OF clothes, and FUR
ther, would pay his doctor bill In
Sal, Lake until such time ~ II took
him 10 recover, and upon his return h
the mine they would pay him the sum
Ot 81 per day M long NJ he remained IN
their employ. Further, that he could
remain In their employ NJ long as lie
wished to. On May ., 1890, the plain.
| tai returned to the mine and was
| given the position m Waterman, which
| place no has held until about three
months ago, when he was discharged.
The present action Is brought ~ IT,.
cover the sun Of 81 per day from the
company since his dismissal FROM
their employ. a kn0tty legal point
crops up here. The contract madu be-
tween the parties at the time Of tho
accident " claimed 10 be void accord.
ing 10 the statute Of limitation. Ia
this contract Erickson agrees 20 re-.
lease them from liability for damages
upon their agreement 10 give him n
permanent situation ut IS per day.
| Now II the fact that the expiration OF
the contract releases the company from
its obligations 10 the plaintiff, will II
| not alto release him In a like manner
from his agreement, aud thus place him
In "a position where he eau institute
damage proceedings against the com.
pany for the lOes Of his arm? The
hearing will be had before Commits.
siOner Meyer.