Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1893-05-03
LAW, FIRE, WATER.
Louis KOlljz, Of ths Randy KIiCasB, 3"
Tried on Serious ChaT6.s,
DID He DESTROY MS GOODS
Did iic Make a rrnululen, Claim UpJn
the liomc Insurance Company
Appeal Withdrawn.

| returned THIS morning DcIvIo NHlil Jus
iice Zane, In tho Thiri dig.ricl court.
APPEAL WITHDRAWN.
In tho case Of Salt Lake City VI
Louis Hobein, who was Hned Sl5 and
costs In Police Justice Kssler's court
for violating the Sunday ordinance, bv
keeping open his saloon on Sunday,
aui the appeal In which was act for
hearing on the sth inst., Attorney
Clarence w. Hall, on behalf Of
the defendant, stated that he desired to
pay the fine assessed and have the ap-
peal dismissed. The ctsts had been
previously paid. The money was
handed over aud the case struck out.
WHO DID II?
Louis kollts, the "liandy kitchen"
man, who formerly carried on business
on west First South street, surrendered
ON his bond for trial ON two counts
making fraudulent claims OF insurance
and destroying insured property.
Assistant District Attorney Stephens
appeared to prosecute; Judge Powers
and Attorney 3. II. Lewis defended.
The selection Of jury took some little
time, both sides exhnufting their
challenges. Ten OF the number were
| soon chosen, but II was In the iilling
up OF the remaining juroTl that the
| difficulty was experienced.
Prosecuting Attorney Stephens very
briefly outlined the facts 10 thu Jury,
after which Attorney Lewis, for the
defense, insisted that thee pro-
ceedlugs were the outcome Of con
Hpiracy against the accused. The fro
i0ok place In July of last year, an nu-
JuatmeDt was made by the insurance
officers, aud Koii,z was paid. -Four
months rolled round and then he was
arrested at the instigation OF one Of the
principal witnesses for the prosecution,
A. H.. Ihurgood. This persOn was ono
of the Hdjustcrs and had previously
been In the employ Of Koliiz. A mis-
understanding took place between tho
two men; Kolliz sued Thurgood, anu
subsequent thereto ThurgOod swore
cut \ complaint ngaintt the other man
on the present charges. a boy named
DonalJson, who was also N the de-
fondant's employ before the fire aud
had been discharged by Koliiz,
was another witness for the
prosecution; so was Mr.. Langton. OF
whom Kolitz was n tenant, and who
afte warts Instituted q laweuit against
him. All the witnesses, In fact, were
directly interested In this affair anu
enemies OF the accused.
Before the case Tor the prosecution
opened, Judge Powers took exception
TO the indictment, on tho ground that 1t
uii not state any public oilense; there
was no allegation that the property
said TO have been destroyed by the
defendant was destroyed with intent
10 doiraua or ipJure the Insurers. This,
he held, was q fatal defect. The objee-
tlon was, however, oyerguiod.
Mr.. B. II. Grant, manager OF the
Home Fire Insurance Co., In which
Office tho defendants stock, etc., was
insured, was the tirt witness.
The policy produced showed
the amount OF insurance TO have
been Sllsl, and the attached
receipt that s599.8i was paid ovor tho
claim. Witness said the IRE on the
dtfendnnps premises, situate In the
Equitable building, occurred on the
morning Of the nth Of July, 1892.
Judge Powers having raised m OBJ
lection 10 certain question referring
to certain articles included in the
stock, arguing that shell nuts could not
be construed as confectionery
candies" or "artlcles in Process of
maDufActure," as ret forth In the In
dictment, Attorney stephens tenn
porarily withdrew MIR. Grant and
called
w. +. Thurgood. In June and
July last, ho said, he vas employed By
the defendant as candy maker ut his
place OF business In tho Equitable
building.
Other objections were here offered
and exceptions taken on the word con.
iectionery, when
Judge zAue said that the term was
only rightly understood by experienced
men, and counsel might call such To
the stand.
Attorney Sicphens-What Is com.
prised within the term ''stock OF con-
fectionery?D
Witness answered that 1t consisted
Of candles, but that in the man.
ulacture OF candy 1t was neces.
sary TO have nuts and
hiuttIlulb VI tutl hlnh- WnultElf. in
fact, was necessary TO make Il. He
had had fifteen years. experience as a
candy maker, both Ia this country and
England.
Containing his evidence witness
went on to state what the general
stock included ut the time he was with
kolltz. Witness reached the store
abOut nine O'Clock ON the morning
after the fire aud looked through the
stock with the defendant and another.
He raw KOliiz take up some dirty
water, draw boxes OF clean Fondon
creams ffOm underneath the table.
pour the water upon tho contents, and
stir them up. He then did the same
with half bucket Of molasses and
about thirty.iive pounds of cocoanut.
stirring IL up with charred stick
Kolitz also tried to put his heel through
q cane.seated rocking chair, but ne |
did not succeed und told "JohnnyD
Donaldson TO thrust u stick through IL.
which he did.
Attorney 5lophena-Did he say any.
thing TO you after thGH
Witness Yes, he said for us TO keen |
quit and no would fix II with us.
Toe witness was cr0ss-exanined by |
Attorney Lewis as ~ what transpired |
Ia the cellar OF the store, where the |
fire originated, on the day prior TO the |
outbreak, but nothing OF Importance |
wns elected.
> ser the fire witness and Kolilz |