Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1894-12-19

Associate Justice Baftch has been
engaged with tho law and motion cal
cndnr today, taking up the cases n the
osdor In which they appear on the
same. Nothing Of any special moment
came up during the arguments.
In the case OF Joseph Holt W. g. H..
Pearson, reported In these columns
yesterday, aud submitted upon motion
for new trial, the Court this morning
OverrulUd the motion AMI an exception
was entered. A stay Of sixty days was
granted 10 prepare statement on
appeal, permission being also given 10
use statement on the motion Tor now
trial upon appeal.
Jane Nixon ShOlCs vs. Henrietta
feadon etal, Default anu decree Of
foreclosure.
Mary r.. Frost Ut al. W. Emmeline
II. Russell 1t al. Motion Tor new
trial passed by consent.
VIM. h. Roy ct al. W. +. J. No.
Laughlln ut nj. Demurrer 10 com.
plant passed by consent.
Richard A. Lowe ". Elizabeth
Sh0well.i Motion 10 fUtax costs con-
nnuoi by consent
George w. Mowry OF al W. II. A.
Fyler. Demurrer 10 second amended
complaint argued and submitted.
As TO THE UTAH NURSERY co.
Attorney q. 5. Variau, On behalf OF
the Defendants, has filed his answer
In the Third district court la the case
Of Aaron keysUr vs. l.. T.. kelsey, Jns.
*. Gillespie, X. b. Gillespie (his Wiiel,
Justine A. Go0dhuV, w. smith anu n.
Smith, Utah Nursery o., aud NJ. B..
5owlcs, assignee.
II sset forth upon Information and
belief that At the time OF the execution
OF the mortgage referred 10 Ia plain
titi's complaint sadie kelsey was tho
wife Of Louis Il. kUIaey, Que OF the
m0rlgagors, that she has dover In
trrest In all anu singular VI prop.
oriy described IN said complaint
and mortgage, aud IL n nepe''
saty and proper party 10 thiu
action. That the Utah Nuuery Co.,
being then the owner OF the premises
IN question, on November lOih .oi tho
present year regularly conveyed the
same 10 NJ. b. SOwios ns assignee in
trust for the benyfi, Of thoir creditors.
Defendants further aver that IN No
vsmber, 1891, defendant Justine A.
GO0dnur leased such premises 10
Parser a Depue for term " three
years, beginning February 25.h, 1899,
nj q stipulated rent Of slO,sOJ, payable
monthly In sums Of $500. This rental,
defendants say. was paid 10 GOodhuu
I'll January, 1898, since which date the
corporation herein named has paid
nothing over TO him; but that by the
direction Of the plainun Parker a
Depub nave discharged tho obligation.
Hence the defendants ask that au
accounting be- had between KsyGer,
Parker & Depue aud defendant G8Ot.
hue they urge that the nursery cor.
poraiion iaa necessary party to tho
action and should DO brought IN as
such. 10 Ia further prayed that
plaintiff DO required 10 mako
Sadie Kelley ana Parker * Dspuu
partlas 10 their bill, aud that
upon the final hearing such sums only
DO decreUt against the property us msy
be found legally due TO tho plaintiff.
CuLMER VS. WILSON.
In tho case Of w. II. Culmer vs. Il.
g. Wils0n aud Belle Wily0n his wife,
the court, on motion OF Attorney Nan'
au, has sustained the demurrer, with
leave 10 plaintiff 10 amend within ton
days, IhlS ia tho tuit In which ~
much litigation has previously taken
place In Regard TO the Eureka hotel, al
Eureka. Mrs. Wilson was formerly
Mrs Belle Tompkius, she having oh.
iained divorce from TOmpkins in
1889 ON account Of his incorporate
habits, and marTioi her present nus,
band IN October, 1891.
THE KING DIVORCE CASE.
In the divorce suit OF Fred A. King
Va Jennie NJ. King, heard before
Judge Bartoh yesterday afternoon, the
motion tor a new trial, applied for by
Judge Powers on behalf Of the defend.
ant, was granted aud tbs hearing sat i0I
January i,h. Thus lhr decree has been
set aside Tor the second time.
liz MUST PAY uP.
john T. 5nelson WAS short timt
ago ordered ~ show cause why he
should not be- punished for contempt In
falling 10 pay t25 per month alimUny
| TO his divorced vile, aud hearing
thereon was had before Judge BRrtch
late yesterday afternoon. An affidavit
by the defendant was put la. lie sci
forth that no was unable, through
poverty, TO pay the alimony, aud that
he did not have sufficient money &C.
come 10 this city from Manli, where h,
Low ruHilua. Tue Ett0Tueya for Mt.
| 5nels0n cOniendud that tue delenIan,
had not made proper showing. The
court ordered that the deiAulting party
nay tho alimony now due, about s75,
1 q. 81