Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1894-01-29
OPINIONS GALORE
Rendered by tho Territorial Supreme
Court This AOrl.ng,
JCDGE snIrn As A DssrSnENL
Modified Decree. Appeals from Ogden.
-lladra aud the iiauks.-lhe
New Chief justice.

tice Merritt, for tho lifat time tilco his
appointment, Joined tue associate Jus.
tlces on tho bench. There was a large
attendance OF members Of the bar
No fewer than ssyuu opinions wrrl
handed down, but no cases y afo argued
this forenoon, an Adjournment having
been taken tll .. m. VIXEN the rrld-
ing Of tue opinions was go. through.
A STREAK oF HuM1n uEuE.
Judge Smith nrst delivered bis de.
sohtlng opinion rom tho minority Of
the Judges In the case Of tho People Of
the Territory W Nellie B,lir, decided
previously. (rhe ease came from Judge
Miners coarLl The dcfc1I4ub DO viii
10 romomBcfed, was convicted in tho
Fourth district court OF grand larceny,
II having been alleged that che stole
5lOJ from one Lena Wight, tho same
arising outoia sort Of o0uBpiracy TO
kali another woman, named Morris.
The Supreme court uflluaod the find.
lnk Oh Inv court btlpMs
Judge smi D now reviewed the pro.
ccedings ut aimc length. There was
one feature u the trial Judges instruc.
tionp, aalI hc, that, were Il not 10
serious n matter, would DO ludicrous.
The court told the jury; "Aud you
Ind that the 500 was obtaiurd W the
defendant la reliance upon the fact
that the defendant OF GiIsun, or
both, had KILLED Mrs. Morris, and
that tho killing In fact had
not taken place; aud you
further iini that tue 500 was obtained
from Mrs. Wright by defendant by this
fraud, deceit, aud trckefy. The fraud
In tho obiaiuing p1sscss.0u OF the
money Ia such case, ~ fh1wu, tab, n
the place Of ttuspAff, which !. EUcta.
shty 10 be shown" etc. 10 would DO
seen, remarked his honor that the
fraud, deceit aud trickety referred %
was the falso approximation OF defend.
ant that che hal murdered Mm Morris,
nsd tue Jury were then told that this
fraud would supply the place OF the
trttpa's nrCeBiary 20 he shown ~ con-.
plUtu tho trial " larceny. 10 other
wouis, ME-. Wright Ga laying over
this blood money was imp5fuI upon, va
that she WIS Induced 10 anu did believe
that II had beeu earned whom Il had
not. II tho court, NJ Indicated
by Ibis Instruction, wanted 10
give 10 tho bargain between
defendant and bite. Wright tue
dignity Of n contract, the violation
VI which would be 4 wrong or conali.
tuto an element OF crime, laasmuch
Rs Mrs. Morris was still alive aud Il
was not shown to be- beyond the pow o.
OF defendant 10 perform the bargain,
II would have been more In Rccori
with ordinary judicial procedure u
have given Judgment TOT specific pot
flTmance " the contract 10 kill, In
stead Of COnvlcllng tho dUirndaut OF a
crime which 10 his (suugB smith,
mind was not Involved ulIher la the
Performance or breach Of the contract
For error Ia the charge OF thu court IN,
judgment below should have been
reversed anu new tIial granted.
A MODIFIED DECREE.
Paragoonah Field aud Canal com,
pauy OF nj. W. William Edwards, ap
reliant. This was an appeal from thu
| luuktuAhN AhA HAAhA W AAN ttAAAN
| district court lJu igc Anderson
ton for new trial. Theii
honoru said the appeal from the ordel
| denying n new trial must DO disregard.
| cd, because there were no specification
Of error. They directed, however, thai
the cause be Temanded to the oouT
below with directions ~ enter modi
fed decree.
ONE FROM OGDEN.
Peter Wilson, appellant, vs. Fred J
Kiesel Il al, respondents, ana Pete
Wilson, respondent, Va Frank J, Gan
non Of nj, appellants. This was NJ
action by the plaintiff, who claimed e
be- judgment creditor u tho Ogdet
Power Co., against the defendants, who
were alleged to be delinquent sub
scribers TO the capital stock oil the com
pany, which WAS claimed to DO In
solvent, that PLAINTIFF Judgment wa,
unpaid; and tuiI was brought on hi
behalf and other cfeiit1n.
Their honOrs were OF opinion tina
the exceptions Of tue defendant
| Cannon anu others 10 the MASTER
report OF facts anu the gtsignment o
error that on the facts found the iudg
ment below was against law wefs bot
well taken, aud that on tuls appeal ia,
cause should be reversed ana remnant
ed 20 the court below Judge Miner's
with directions to uisnlts Iho action
This conclusion, said ihtit honor
rendered II unnecessary 10 pass ON TIT
question raised ON PLAINTIFF appeal NJ
10 whether or not hlustli Carnahai
and Anderson had paid lholr suhserip
ton 10 the capital stock Of the Ogden
Power company.
VAILED Oh ArrEAL.
FREQ 5. HRdra, appellant, vs. thi
Utah National Bank, Wsp0ndent. Thi
was an action for damages by HadTl
againit the bank Tor wT1ngiully caus
ing his cheek 10 be- protested, ant
damages la the sun OF $40,
OJ0 were claimed, On the lrig
In Judge Battch's court % verdict wa
found Tor tue ueieuunuh anu Haurl
moved for re.hesunG which mOliOI
was OyefruleG; hence tue appeal, ~
said their Honou, The plaintiff sui
tered any damagUgt OH uAuet lhe evi
dence the jury were WaIIAAl.u IA hnd
ing that he was the Gu.Aoi OF Ma owl
injury. 10 seemed hu i,iDlue lhe pay
meuuot the check, and No iat ~ shown
no person outside OF tho Two banks In
teresleJ (Ihe HeooRd benz ln1 Amerl
eau Natlonal) ever heard 0' IL e1cep
from Hsdra himself