Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1893-06-16
SUPREME COURT.
Opinions Continue 10 Come From
the Bench Day by Day.
JUDGE BLAcKBURN's ILL LUCK.
Appeals In Probate Matters.-About the
Removal Of an ADMINISTRATIVE
Admission TO the Bar.


Judges being present.
BLAcinuES's MISTAKE.
In the CASE Of II. W. Hiwlcy, plain.
tiili Va Warren Corey aud othcrs, dc.
fondanis, the opinion was rendered by
Judge Smith.
Plaintiff commenced an action ia
the Fint district court at Provo
against the defendants, who
were partners under the style Of
Corey Brothers q Co., to recover s35,-
900 damages alleged to have accrued
~ reason Of brtpch OF contract In
regard 10 Ger ain grading on the Great
NOfthtfn hilfOs1 In Montana,
amounting TO seventy stations Of one
huntted feet each. + Jury lound
tor the plaintiff In the sum VI $4,000.
a motion Tor n new trial wus mauu anu
Uveffulot,
The supreme court found a number
OF errors IN the record. The motion
Tor new trial, their honor. said,
! should have been granted aud the Yer.
diut Get asiic, The judgment Of tue
lower court was therefore reversed aud
tue cause rtmanued Tor new trial.
Juhllcea Miner anu Bartch con.
| CURED.
BLACKBURN AGAIN wRONd.
In the matter Of the estate n VIM. ID.
Moultou, deceased, Judge Zane de-
livered the opinion.
The probate court Of Wasatof
county denied the petition OF Que
George smith 10 be appointed sdmin.
u NalF#lnF a
/ appealed 10 the First district court at
/ Provo, aud Judge Blackburn also
| denied the prayer, at the same time
appointing h. l.. Dudley admi nistrntoi
| de BONE non, From this Judgment
MoulIons widow land holm appealed
to this court.
Their hpnots held that equity should
not take Jurisdiction ia matters per.
tanning TO administration aud the set
uomont Of estates except on appeal VI
tue subject Of the order appealed from,
| or "unltHs the case iuvOlvoa some
special feature or exceptional circum-
stancte OF themselves Warfauting the
interference Of equity, such a. fraud,
/ waste anu the like, OF unlom II
/ Ia OF such nature that
| probate court Ia Incompetent ~ give
adequate relief, or IA one OF which the
probate court, having taken coguiz.
ance, has iniscarrled aud failed TO do
| Justice by lis ueoTec.D In this iu-
stance the authority OF the probate
I court and tho remedy II afforded were
sufficient aud adequate aud the order
If tue district court appealed from was
| held by their honors 10 be- erroneous.
| IL was therefore reversed.
Judges Miner, BarIch AMI 5mit h
/ cOncurrtd.
CHARGES AGAINST AN ADMINS.
TKATRfN.
In this ease Of Mary II csc and Hllda
| Reese, appellants, VI Alvita Reese,
/ administrative Of the estate OF John
d. Reese, respondent, Judge BlTtcn
rendered the opinion.
! AlyifE, the daughter Of John D.,
/ was appointed Administrative Of his
estate on May 9th, 1851, and has 10
continued ever since. In July, 1892,
the appellants filed chRfge'4of neglect.
ing the administration OF the estate,
etc., against her in the Probate court
Of Box Elder county, Utah, asking Tor
her removal from office, and that letters
DO granted TO the appellants. The
Probate court, after hearing the case,
dismissed the petitions aud refused to
revoke the letters Of administration.
An appeal was taken TO tue Fourth
district court and there dismissed; and
hence the appeal IL the Supreme court.
| The question raised was whether or
not an appeal lies from an order OF
probate court In this Territory refusing
! 10 remove an Administrator from office
anu AppOint another Ia bis place.
The chargos preferred against
the administrative In this case,
said their honors, were OF
serious character, affecting the rights
Of the petitioners, anu II proved 10 be-
truo were sufficient cause for moyAl.
The probate court heard the case and
dismissed the petition. In doing this
that court made nnAl order from
which an appeal lay, and this court
was Of this opinion that the district
court erred In Diminishing IL.
| Judgment reversed and the case re-
manded TO the lower court for trial
dc nOU0.
Judges Zane and Smith concurred In
the opinion.
ADMITTED TO THE BAR.
Upon application OF Attorney Dey,
| Mr.. j. Byrn Jennings, OF Nebraska,
was admitted to practice ut the bar VI
| this court.
MINING LITIGATION.
The first case argued WIS that OF b.
Darger et al, plaintiils and respondents,
Va ~. V. Le Sieur, Defendant and APP
pellant. IL came on for re-hearing.
| Attorney Arthur Brown and Judge
Henderson represented tho appellant;
Judge Bennett appeared for the res
pondents, appeal from Judge Black
| butn--Fitst distTict,)
The action was originally brought
TO recover possession OF six mining
claims located ON unsurveyed public
land OF the United States and not EN-.
braoed within the limits OF any mining
district. Plaintiffs ailege that they
acquired their rights OF possession ana
Ownership by reason OF full Compli.
anoe with the laws OF this Territory
anu Of the United States since 1888,
and that while they were doing their
annual assessment work tor the year
1890 defendant wTongfully entered into
POSSESSION anu Ousted them. IL was
urged by appellant that the court be-
low erred In overriding his demurrer
TO plaintiffs amended compliant, the
demurrer having been interposed on
the ground that the complaint did not
sufficiently describe the property 10
| -. a. a.