Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1894-12-18
THE DISTRICT COURT.
Civil Business Is Now Running 10
Both Divisions.
MOTIONS BEFORE JUDGE uARTCu.
One In Reference to q Bouniiful Matter,
the Other As to
Divorce.

Tho two branohe, Of the laird die.
tilet court have been IN fun working
order again today.
Judge Bartch began his morning by
making the following
sifORr ORDERS.
II. 3. L,ney, administrator, W.
John u. Wnrioll ct al. Demurrer 10
complaint passed.
In The case Of the People vs. Charles
X. Whitehead, indicted Tor grand
larceny, the defendant was Erraigned
aud plead not guilty. His bond was
reduced to $3.50, to be- approved by
Commissioner Grounman.
Jamcs Goddard Va l.. n. Parsons q.
at Demurrer TO complaint set Tor
hearing December 2lat.
Solomon Karpsn o, al Va tho Earls
Furniture u Carpet Co. Motion to
relax cosis cot Tor hearing December
2lst, providing the court can roach IL
by that time.
Aaa'AfNhafa AfH Aaaia
Legal arguments wero uoxt made ON
motion for now trial in tho case Of
Joseph Holt vs. Charles Pearson. Tno
action was tried before Judge Barloh
and jury Ia April lnai, when "A yer.
ulct was fendetci Tor plaintiff Ia tho
sum OF sl,o2LIl. IL was upon this
nhdlhg That tue defendant now moved
through bis attorney, Coin. NJ. NJ,
halghn' Attorney Waters Appeared
Ia opposition.
suit was originally brought 10 re-.
cover sliZlh'I0i interest thereon from
June lsli 1911, and costs alleged to bq
uuo rs Tue net balance OF money paid
ny plalntlh anu other persons 10 DO.
ionuant Tor tho procuring Of deeds
10 certain lands Ia Bountiiul addition
lowuslte plat. IL was claimed that
81 $500 was paid 10 Pearsvn In ex-
cess OF the amount REQUIRED for tho
decide, that he had refunded the sum OF
slBs,1b, leaving unpaid the baiance
sued tor The PLAINTIFF case was thnt
In May, 1891, the defendant repre-.
sonted 10 him and olhets that no
was the agent Of the probate Judge OF
DAVIS county, Utah, Tor tho collection
OF Tees anu expenses for procuring
deodu to lAnda In tho additional plat
nbaVo named, and that the costs for
these per lot AMI making survey was
s42. Relying upon these statements
plaintln paid 10 him sizes. ana the
other pereons their proportion. II was
stated, however, on the trial,
that tho fun charge made should
not have exceeded 50 per lot,
an required by the laws OF Utah. Upon
demand beiug made OF defendant In
March, 1899, for the return OF the
amounts paid In excess OF the So, he
refused 10 Yield, but, conietslng the In
correctness Of his representations, in
tue same year returned $3.50 per lot Of
the sum uniustly collected, amounting
In the aggregate TO sl6S.75, leaving
tho net balance named US sued for, the
Olher parties Interested having rs
signed theit respective amounts to
plaintiff.
The motion for a new trial was
nasod on several grounds, among them
alleged iregularity In the proceedings
OF tho court aud abuse OF It's
discretion, by which the defendant
was prevented from having fair trial:
excessive damages, appearing TO have
been awarded under the Influence Of
passion or prejudice; insufficient tssti.
mony to Justify tho verdict; ana errors
OF law.
Upon the conclusion OF the argu.
menlH the case was submitted 10 the
court.
THE KING DIVORCE SUIT.
On Saturday last Judge Powers, on
behalf OF the uoioudant in the divorces
case of Fred King vs. Jennie NJ. King,
10 SGT asiuv stipulation. rhe
facts were given IN that days NEWS
and the matter now came up, as per
NJ that time, for further
aTgumonl. Tue plaintiff was ropre.
seutei by Attorney Street (Dey Il
5trrel). A decree was gTnnteu by de-
fault IN tho met Instance by Chief
Justice Zane, Te-aiiiTmud on subse.
luent occasion ny Judge BaTtch, ON
me strength u Il certain alleged stiru.
alton, and after the whole thing haI
been apparently settled Mrs. King an.
cared on the scene anu TeIudiated
he entire proceeding. Hence the
resent hearing which lie proceeding
his afternoon.