Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1893-04-13
THE COURTS TODAY.
Judges Zane and BartCh Have a Rather
Slender Morning.
THE RoY.McGuRRIS CASE OVER.
Action by the salt Lake Construction
Company.-A Real Estate
Mans Commission.

the ehtlrc morning In Judge Zano's
division, while in that Of Judge Bartch
but little Roadway was made. In the
laltir Instance n good deal Of time was
wasted by counsel IN trivial argument
ON small applications and motions
wholly devoid Of public Interest.
RoY vs. M'GuRRiN 1T Al.
The hearing of this case, begun yes.
terdny morning, was resumed before
Judge Zane and n jury at 10 q. m. to.
day. VIM. II. Roy is the plainii n and
Frank McGurrin and j.. Il. Darling
are the defendants, the amount claimed
"a damages being $500, for alleged
deviation from the specific alton In tho
building OF u house by defendants for
tho plaintiff. The legal arguments
were made this morning by Attorney
w. II. Dickson on the part OF the dc.
PENDANTS and by Attorneys Reilly,
Kane aud Harris on tho plaintiffs
side. About noon the case went to tho
Jury who Ef.er u abort deliberation re-
turned q verdict for the defendants.
The finding IL Of considerable import
ance to the defendants, who are well
known "homc builders" In the city,
and absolvee them from what they
claim In this Instance 10 be an unwar.
rautablo impulstion.
a SUMMARY DISCHARGE.
In tho next case for trial Fred But.
let was the plaintiff, his attorney being
+. Il. Barker, ami JAMES VI. Kennedy
tne II, fsndant, who WINS represented by
Attorney w. &. Hall. The amount
sued for was $500, which the plaintiff
claimed as compensation under these
circumstances: He alleged that the
Defendant placed him on his farm,
eituate some ak miles west OF the city,
the terms being that he should work
there ION shares" by reason OF tho
extrome dfouth, plaintiff was not able
10 accomplish nearly 40 much ~ he
otherwise would have been during tho
season, aud Ia September last, he
states, Kennedy summary dismissed
him, removed the stock, and rt fased to
come to any settlement with him for
what he had already done upon the
farm.
When the case was called on con.
tinuance was applied for, on the
strength OF an affidavit by the dtfend-
ant, and granted-for the term.
BEFORE JUDGE BARTcH.
The salt Lake Construction Co. VI.
ID. Alexander was the first case down
for trial, but on motion OF counsel 1t
went over until later IN the day. Its
u suit 10 collect slii odd, for labor and
material furnished, on IN assigned ao-
count.
The Union Pacific Coal company W.
A. l.. Williams ct al. This action was
dismissed as to the defendant Simp-
kins.
Beulah A. Beattie Va. John J. By
non ct al. Motion by plaintiff for leave
TO file amendment 10 complaint and
supplemental complaint submitted.
ON A PRoMIssoRY NOTE.
In the case OF James Anderson We.
the Yosemite Mining and Milling Co.,
q. 4. VRrian IA attorney for the plain.
tn and Col. NJ. NJ. Kaighn, Arthur
Brown and w. q. Hal are coun-
sci for the deiendhnts. IL Ia
An action 10 recover on u
pronissory nUte the sum Of $4,000,
which with interest ut the rate OF one
per cent per month brings up the total
amount claimed to si6S0. IL isalleged
by the plaintiff that the note was exc
cuted on May Ia, 1886; but the defend.
ants uoH'hu thht phlhtlh WINS Hot uiu
owner OF the note or OF tho debt secured
or covered by 1t, but that It belonged TO
George NJ. Scott aud w. IL. Reming-
ton. When the case was called Colo
mel Kaighn moved for a continuance,
but tho motion was vigorously opposed
by counsel on the other side, and
overruled by the court. A jury was
waived anu the trial had before his
honor. II was proceeding ut $3.50 p. IN.
REFEREE's FINDINGS.
Referee Hon. +. 3. Richards this
morning filed his report and findings
with the clerk Of the Third district
court In the case OF &. o. Whittemoro
W. Mary Ann Jack ct al. lie found for
the defendant,
THE GRAND JURY.
This body has been In session again
TO-DAY.
4 CLAIM FOR COMMISSION.
In yesterdays NEWS was mentioned
the case OF John J. Snyder VI. Mrs.
Ellen Everell, on trial In Judge
Bartch's court. The action was brought
in one OF the lower courts 10 collect
slg5 alleged TO be due US commission
for securing loan in the sum OF $4,000
for tho dofendRnt. Mrs. Evereli us
serted In her answer that an agree
ment was entered into between herself
and the plaintiff to tho effect that II
the said loan was not procured by
specified date she should DO released
from liability. II was then alleged
that the loan was not 10 procured, and
hence the defendant denied thc indebt-
| edness and asked to DO dismissed. In
the court below judgment was rem
dered In favor Of the plaintiff for the
full amount. The case reached the
Jury at Z O'Clock Rnd 1t took them but
snort time TO find In favor OF the
defendant.
FOR THE PLAINTIFF.
The trial OF the case OF Henry Bows
Vi. ID. Hirsohler Il Co. went to tho
Jury at 1880 p. m, yesterday, rs stated
| In that days NEWS. At 8 O'Clock they
| Ind not reached u decision and counsel
| for the defense asked that they 10
| brought into court for additional In
struction, to the effect that verdict
might be retained by nine or more
| members. They were accordingly
brought In ami 80 instructed, tho
| plRintlii's counsel taking an exception.
Again retiring, tho Jury soon returned
With q verdict for the plaintiff for $500,
oigned as instructed, with one dlssent-
| inc iufOF.