Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1894-01-23
WILL TAKE A REST.
TWO OPINIONS DELIVERED TODAY
A Curious Conspiracy TO Murder a
Woman for the suin OF 500,
aud What Camo Of Il.

- hNAWWH NNWhVlIAfl 70 MuFWCf
Woman for the suin OF 500,
and What Camo Of Il.
-
There was au uuuually large nt-
tendance Of attorneys at tho opening OF
this motniag's session u the Territorial
Supreme court. All the judges were
upon the bench, namely Chief JJs,lco
l'ne, Associate Justices Miner, Barleh
aud smith.
OPINIONS.
When the minutes Of tho previous
session tFnday ils) had bson read by
CLERK Bacho the following opinions
were delivered:
mNER AFFIRMED.
The fire, was by Judge Bar,ch In the
case d Harry T. Duke, respondent, W
George q. Griffith, appellant, the facts
In which were reported Ia these
columns on the argument VI tue case
last week.
This was an action IN ejeclment
hrough, by the plaintiff 10 recover
possession Of certain parcel OF land,
ani jury IN the Fourth district court
found Ia his favor, under instructions
u the presiding Judge. Tho motion
for a nov tidal was denied, anu from
this tho defendant appealed.
Judge Zane now UDucuTfed ia the
hndihs affirming thu ruling Of tho
lower court.
a PECULIAR CASE.
Judge Zane rendered the oplpion In
lho case OF thc People, respondents, VI
Nellie Berlin, appellant.
The defendant was convicted In the
Fourth district court Of grand larceny.
On the TRIAL the prosecution introduced
evidence tending 10 prove that she
stole 500 from Ouo Lena Wright, anu
tnu defendant Induced testimony TO
chow that sho entered into conspi-
facy With Mrs. Wright TO kill Mrs.
Morris for the confederation OF slUO,
and that she caused a false statement
10 be published In n newspaper to
the tiiscI tuat Mfs. Morris mad died
Ui heart disuare. This she showed to
Mrs. Wright, who relied upOu the
statement and paid her tue 800 Al-
legged 10 have been stolen. Testimony
10 febut this was put In. The defou.
dant excepted TO tue charge Of tho
court ami assigned the giving Of II as
error.
The Jurors, said their honors, might
have understood from one portion Of
tho charge, without the qualification
which followed, that they might Ind
the defendant guilty OF larceny,
though Mrs. Wright paid her the 500
intending 10 transfer both tho posses.
sion and title, II such transfer was
induced by her fraudulent representa-.
ton anu pretenses. rhe qualification
was "But n tho money wEs delivered
10 the defendant by tho owners cou-
bout In pursuance VI a previous agree.
mcnt, % II II was voluntarily deliver.
cd 10 defendant, tho owner Intending
10 part with tIe possession aud
title 10 A., then there was
no larceny, even u fraud was estaD.
llshcd Ia obtaining It," Their houOfa
understood this To be correct state
muut Of the rule applicable 70 such
ffaudulent transactions, however the
iugcnui y VI rUguca might vary the
facts la particular oasug.
IL tbs owner OF personal property
was Induced by fraudulent representa-.
ing also to p,ft Win tLstitle. M. trans.
action could not be- larceny, But N
The pefson receiving tie poss.,slon
without The title bad al the time a rerfet
Intention Of converting n psrmansntIy
10 lila own use, and I'D 10 without the
consent of the owner. he Committed
Inc crime OF larceny. "Ru.srIl on
Crlme,D and other SuthorlIles were
uuoieJ. the court then rrmafking that