The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-01-19
Three Cases Argued in the Su-
preme Court.
OVER A HOMESTEAD ENTRY.
A SOLDIERS RIGHT TO ASSIGN 1T
BEFORE IT'S ENTRY.
Appeal in a Hardware and "A Furni-
ture Case-Frank Richards and
Annie Thomas Not Guilty of For
nicatiOn Judgments Entered,
Suits Begun, Short Orders, Etc.


down. Judge Miner read the opinion
the judgment of the court
below with cost, Chief Justice Zane
and Judge Bartch concurring.
Judgment was rendered in favor OF
the plaintiff in a United States com
missioners court. An appeal was
taken by Barben to the district court
but when the appeal papers were de-
posted with the clerk thereof, on June
%, 1898, the docket and jury fees were
not paid. On July Is the respondent
made this payment, however, had the
case docketed, and then entered his
motion to dismiss the appeal under
rule of the court which requires the
appellant to pay such docket and jury
fees within thirty days after the re-
ceipt of the appeal papers. Appellant
claimed that the motion to dismiss
was prematurely filed for the reason
that July % fell on Sunday and the
24th was a legal holiday, and that
therefore he was entitled to all of the
18th in which to make payment.
Their honors now held that the APP
peal was properly dismissed and af-
firmed the judgment of the lower court,
with costs.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
The next opinion handed down was
in the case of Samuel Marie, appel
liant, VS. The Ogden Street Railway
company, in which Chief Justice Zane
read the opinion affirming the decision
of the court below, Judges Bartch and
Smith concurring.
1t was an appeal by the plaintiff
from a Judgment of the Fourth dis
trict court, against the defendant, on
a verdict for $50 and $50 costs. On
motion of defendant the court taxed
the costs according to the fee bill en-
acted by the territorial legislature
and disallowed the fees of four wit
nesses, amounting to $1770, because
they had not appeared before the clerk
within two days after trial and
claimed their attendance. To this rul
ing plaintiff excepted and assigned the
same as error.
A HARDWARE SUIT.
Kansas City Hardware company vs
James Nelson, appellant, was the frs
case argued.
Attorney Barlow Ferguson appeared
on behalf of the appellant, and Attor
ney G. W. Meyer for the respondent
The case came up on appeal from thu
decision of Judge Zane in the Thir(
district court
Plaintiff began his action before eX
Commissioner H. E. Booth to recove
the sum of STA as the value of good
sold and delivered to the defendant a
Big Cottonwood, in this county. Sum
mons was served upon Nelson, in BIZ
Cottonwood precinct, Of which he wa
resident and there acting as justic
of the peace. He appeared before tn
commissioner and objected to his try
ing the case on these grounds, but tn
former insisted on doing so, and rem
dered judgment against him. An ap
peal was taken to the Third distric
court, but the objections were over
ruled and the presiding judge Zane
G. j. instructed the jury to find
verdict for the plaintiff for the amour
claimed, with interest. Hence the ap
peal to the supreme court.
ABOUT SOME CHAIRS.
The Hudson Furniture company az
pellants vs. The Freed Furniture con
pany was next taken up which wa
an appeal from Judge Zane's Gecisio
in the Third district court.
Attorney Benner x. Smith was fc
the appellant and Judge Henderson fc
the respondent.
1t was shown at the trial that tn
plaintiffs travelling salesman took
verbal order from the defendant where
by plaintiffs were to furnish him, FIRE
on board cars at Hudson, Wis, a cal
load of chairs, for the sum of $43S. Tt
goods arrived at the Salt Lake railroa
/ depot but defendant refused to re
ceive them, and the defense in an az
/ finT for. tho loc &C 1,c
the contract was void by reason of il
not being in writing.
MONTAGUE VS.. McCARROLL.
The last case on the docket for I'll
day was that of John ]. Montague al
pellant VS.. George McCarroll an al
peal from a judgment of Judge Ear
in the Third district court.
Attorneys James A. Williams and
H. Lewis were for the appellant an
Attorneys Frank Pierce and w.
Brown for the respondent.
The plaintiff in the original con
plant complains and alleges that /
is and has been since April 23, 1891, tt
owner in fee of forty acres of land
Salt Lake county situate at the nortl
east corner of northeast quarter of Sc
ton %, township 1 south, range 1 cas-
and running thence west forty rod
thence south eighty rods, thence ca.
forty rods, thence north eighty rods
the place of beginning; that the sat
plaintiff claims title in fee to the sa.
described land and that the defendan
claim an estate or interest therein az
verse to the said plaintiff; that the sa:
claim of defendants and each of the
is without any right and that the
have no right, title or interest in sa
nd hcAr -ca4a Lot
the defendant may be for ever debar
ed from asserting any claim whatev
to said land.
The defendant in his answer ar
cross complaint denied that the plai
tiff has been the owner of said lar
since April p, 1891, and further a,
swering and as a separate defense a
leges that he is the owner in fee ar
in the possession of said land and III
he and his grantors and their predece
sors have been in open, peacable Ar
adverse possession of said nremis
and whole thereof since 1875. claimir
the same adverse to all the world. tn
he deraigns his title throubh an II
broken chain of conveyance beginni,
with the patent to said land issued
the United States to one Adolph Han
hammer "a soldier) Nov. 8, 1876. wher
lore oeIendant prayS that plant
take nothing by this action and tn
he be dismissed with costs and tn
all adverse claims of the plaintiff m;
be determined by a decree of said con
declaring that said plaintiff has
! estate or interest to said land and tn
} the title of defendant is valid.
The facts were that on November
1876. the United States issued a. nate
to Adolph Hankhammer for the Ia,
: IN question, that the said Hankhasnm
| sold and conveyed it to one Holm
Ryan by deed, that Jonn J. RYAN 20
veyed the same to William ]. Rya
that William ]. Ryan held it till 40