Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1893-06-13
SUPREME COURT.
A Point 10 the Registration Of Votes
Of Weber County:
OPINION ny THE JUDGES.
The Casr of Martha Co,mbr, vs. The saii
Lake a Fort nousla, Railway
Company on ippyai.

When the Territorial supyms court
met THIS morning al the judges wcr,
present.
TINE ALLOWED.
In the case Of Prrcgo W Dodge, the
appellant wa given until Thursday 10
Ole additional anldayiii Of value, ths
respondent being allowed till the iol.
lowing Thursday 10 fle counter ALI
davis. Tho remittlur was stayed In
tho menn,imc.
REGISTRATION on vOTrs.
Judge Zinc rendered the opinion OF
lhc court Ia the case Of Joseph Z.
Ledwidge, clerk Of the Probate
court OF Weber county, U.ah, VI
George II. Maisou, registration On sor
Of Weber county, f. l.. Choplu, G.
y. Hartman, George L.. Corey, a. /.
Stone, aud II. Durbrow, deputy
registrars.
The defendants were registration
oiilccn for wobor county In
1852 by appointment OF aud
under the board of commissioner AZ
pointed by the President OF the u nltrd
5Iates, Ia pursuanor Of section OF an
act Of Congress Ia force March 92nd,
1889, and tho record shows that Ina
registering the votes OF that county Ia
October aud prior u the second Mon.
day thereof, for the election 10 be- held
Nov. 5th, 1899, ia punuanCe Of section
~ or az uct Of Congress, IN force
March $50, 1857, they respectively
took the tiliIayilH prescribed there
In Of numerous voters. After the
nnidnviu had been taken ana before
commencing this action, the plaintiff,
es clerk, demanded them, But the
several defendants refused 10 deliver
them ar. Accordingly an application
iOf "A writ OF manIanua commanding
tho delivery was maze October gith,
1892. Upon a hearing the court or.
dctul y pefomptDfy writ TO issue, call.
Ing upon the deiundahts 10 deliver all
such nilldnvils ~ the plalniin. From
THIS judgment the present appeal was
taken.
Their honorB remarked II was appar.
ent that the object Of requiring the
! ~
accordance with section 9i2, Compiled
Laws OF Utah, ~ amended by sociiOn
4, chapter ~, laws OF Utah, 1897, and
10 be open % the inspection Of tie
public, was that they mig ht be preserved
ina permanent fOim, and that the
people Interested Ia the elect on might
examine tho same and ascertain
whether any names had been placeI
f.V ml NsHAN
having taken thU oath, or any who had
taken the oath had been left of.
The registration officer, the court hell,
had no right 10 place the name OF any
person on tho register who had not
taken II. After the officer received
the oath and registered the vOlcra It
was his duty 10 deliver all such an.
uaviIs 10 the probate clerk, whose duty
II was 10 keep the same IA public
record so that the public might know.
by inspection, whether any ono had
been Registered without taking
the oath required by law,
or the names Of any who
had taken Il had been lett of. 1t
was not necessary for tue registration
oiliorr TO Keep tue Oaths In his posses.
sion. II the right OF any porson 20
vote whose name was upon the record
was contested on the ground that he
had not taken the oath, the registrar
might Inspect the record or certified
copy Of thu same could DO produced, or
II could no shown that there was no
record OF II.
Thejudgment OF the lower court was
affirmed, Judge BarIch concurring.
ANOTHER FoR THE U. 8. MARSHAL.
The fret case argued WAS that OF
Orson II. Petit, plaintiff and respond.
ent (rspTesonled by Attorney Rawlins),
Va L.. IL. Marshal, defendant
and appellant, for whom Attorney
Darke appeared. The plaintiff was In
possession Of goods levied UPON by the
defendant W U. 3. marshal, under an
assignment for the benefit OF creditors.
Ii was cOntended, however, that this
assign ment was invalid on account OF
certain aols VI fraud; but there was no
allegation that the assignee or any OF
the creditors was In any way con.
nected herewith. Defendant offered
TO prove certain representations made
by the assignors prior 10 their asslgu-
ment, as TO their solvenoy, but the
court excluded thiaaud other evidence,
holding tue same not competent TO Ia.
validate the assignment.
The case was submitted after argu.
ment.
SUIT AGAINST A RAILROAD COMPANY.
The appeal Of Martha Ann Coombs,
appellant vs. the salt Lake and FOri
Douglas Railway company, respond
enls, was next called, Attorney j. A.
Williams arguing this CASE for tho APP
pellnnt and Attorney LeGfand Young
that for the railway company. Plaintiff
originally brought suit 10 recover
Judgment In the sum Of $1,000 against
the defendants for damage TO her
property and Tor an Injunction alleging
that ingIess and egrtss TO her premises
in the eastern. par. OF the city were de.
stroyed, ana that the noise aud smoke
arising from the passing engines An-
noyed her and injured the property.
The court below awarded the damages
as prayed, but refused the Injunction
on the ground chiefly OF the large
amount Involved and the rights OF
third persOns Ia tue property that had
accrued long after the foad was built,
but before plaintiff made any com
plaint. Against this ruling In Judge
Baftoh's court an appeal IL taken.
ATTACHMENTS.
An attachment suit was filed today
I'm thu Third district court by Mayer
5. Ascheim aginst George q. Kidder
ana II. w. Kidder Grading as Kidder