Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1893-12-08
A GENUINE ROAST.
JUDGE ZlHJs Condemnation o., lot.
lsrIes and Th3iF A tl.s.
scArnIse DESuSuAuoy
Scaled Verdict IN the Macaay.rrzan.
spergcr Casc.--Misccllau'Uns
Mites Gathered IN.

Mites Gaihertu W
In Chief Justice Zaue's court this
morning there were one or TWO mat.
ttis Of especial interest," as vii be
found upon q pcfusal Of the cases rr.
ported below.
A SEALED vERDiCG
The iu.y before VIII m was tried
yc.tsriay afternoon tho case orc. T..
Mackay " II. Enzcnspofgcr came iuto
court at 10 O'CLOCK this morning and
handed 10 the clerk theig sealed vei-
dict The finding was ia favor of the
defendant signed by ten Jurors
Attorney Booth Immediately entered
an exception 10 tho vcTI'c., 900 the
ground that u was not unanimous
one.
The fac,s were briefly given iu
yosltrday's NEWS, action having
been brought hero To enforce q
judgment f1r si,5gs.77 obtained In the
county court Of Pi,siu county, Col.
oraio, on June / ith, 1856, with interest
on the same at ten per cen, per an.
mum. The defendant nntwcftd that
tho judgment Ia question was fully
sat.siioI on April 18th, 1851 by tho
payment OF $500 cash and the tfansicr
Of certain real estate at Gicuwood
Springs.
On motion Of Attorney Booth the
court la,or In the day granted a stay Of
thirty days 10 nlc statement on motion
iOra new trial.
A SEVERE iComNU.
The case " tho Mexican inter.
national Building company w Henry
LIChteus.ulu then came on Tor hearing,
the plaintiffs bclng represented hy
Attorneys s.. n. Lewis aud q, Ira
kfgbs, auI the defendant BY Attorney
Frank Pierce.
Action was brought 10 recover the
sum Of Sl,Gs2 70, with Interest nt eight
yer cunt per auuum fr0m August .7th,
1870, anu Uutts Of suit, alleged 10 be
due ~ balance OF money received by
the defendant for the plaintiff, as agent
Of tue latter, between March lith,
1890, aud August 27th, Of the same
year. The plaintiff CORPORATION ~
described us hayiug been organized
under the laws Of tho republic Of Mex
leo.
In denying his liability for any
amount, either as agent Or In any other
hsH fNHHa az
during all the times mentioned plain.
tiii was engaged IN California AMI
elsewhere IN a scheme Tor tho disposal
aud distribution u property "by
chance" among porsous who had paid,
or promised ~ pay, valuable con.
siCorntiOn for the chance VI obtaining
"A portion Of such property, upon the
understanding that the same should b.
disposed Of BY lot or chance, commonly
known ~ q lottery, under the name 0i
the "JuafeE lottery" aud that
during said period plainuf fur.
ulshed to him, Vt San Francisco,
tickets Or chances Ia the same,
charging him therefor tho amount
claimed Ia tue ptuteut action. Dc,
irndant stated further that the alleged
Indebtedness arose in no other way,
that the tickets or chances were value
less, anu that 10 was unlawful to de.
liver them 10 the defendant, by the
laws OF this state Of California. Plain.
tn, he insisted, could not therefore
recover, incidentally pointing out
that the said lottery business was also
prohibited by the laws Of Utah terri.
tory.
The only Wituess called was Atlor.
noy &. Ira ktebs, on tho part Of tho
plalntitl, and ko undertook 10 testify
an 10 certain admissions made by the
defendant 10 hin when he presented
the bill for collection. The witness
stated that the same was for lottery
tickets sold 10 the defendant ia CAlifoT.
MIA while the plaintiffs were conduct.
Ing tho "Juarez lottery"
Thefeupon Attorney Pierce Inter.
jected motion 20 strike out the wit.
ness'a testimony, on the ground that
It went 10 sustain a lottery contract,
which was illegal under tho laws OF
California, and that therefore the
plaintiffs could not recover.
II was admitted that the statutes Of
California and Utah Ia disregard were
alike.
His Honor sustained tue motion Of
Mr.. Pierce and after quoting freely
from the statutes OF both California
and Utah, took the opportunity Of
giving all the parties 10 the suit
thOfOugh roasting a. well a. applying
the lash 10 lottery promoters anu
their agents In general
lilo was Of the opinion, he said, that,
being an Illegal act, this company
would commit misdemeauor II they
received the money claimed. IL was
not right tor them 10 receive
II for any tuoh purpose. nj
the ticket called Tor property or
money, they could not pay II. II thoy
did they would violate tho law In do.
llyering the property 80 called for. |
This scented 20 reach every body con. |
neoted with the matter. The whole |
transaction and everything about 1t |
was contaminated and tainted with |
crime. rhat appeared % bD the inteu- |
ton Of the legislature. or course N tho |
man who got this money held II, aud !
did not pay Il back, he was a awindler,
was liable 10 be indicted, and ought 10 |
be punished, the law denOuncing him |
as criminal. The law must then |
regard him ar a fraud, a. an outlaw |
who ought TO he put In the RaOl OF |
penileutiaTy. Toe only way he could |
get out VI tue difficulty was 10 pay the |
money back 60 the different parties
from whom he received u. This |
court could not aid any company |
In committing a crime Courts were