Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1894-11-15
THE DISTRICT COURT.
4 JuB's Verdict 10 Favor Of The Salt
Lake City Rillrold Company.
kolitz and III. Late Partner Of Outs
Arthur lirown's Suit Against
the "lr.buuc."

e-o,VuU manage suit Drought ny Juhu
II. Lloyd against the Salt Lake CITY
Railroad Co., consequent upon the
death Of his little cor, ,hu jurors ft.iftd
IN charge o. court hainl. The tfial
o. the case had oc,uP.o, couple OF
days. The boy was kilI,j while cr1fs.
10y tho companls track near the
corner Of tInt South aud Fiuh West
streets.
After being out Tor upwards Of an
hour tue jury came Into court with a
verdict Tor the defendants, sigued 10y
nine Of their numOcL
the plaintiff counsel objected TO
the reception and hing Of the Yer lic:,
ON tue ground that the jury was d.
vidud Ia opinion. The %, I'iion was,
however oysuu.ed aud an exception
taken.
A stay Of Thirty days was granted Ia
which 70 prepare an - srtve sIatums Ut
on motion iOfa now trial.
Two SHORT ORDERS.
Ia tho csss u Chrr. Stttsc Ct hl vs..
Elizabeth A. NiUAurshAm ~ al, II
was OT.ugoi tnat tue Iud gmsut hereto.
/ fore entered uU oct asiIt; tnif on
motion Of the plaintiffs.
| AlireI Thompson W. W. n. Me
| Cure 81 NJ. Motion Of doicuIaups
/ counsel 90 uuasn summon as 10 crt.
tam utiUnubuH--W. Al. aud AmAuia
Cme-A ustaiuod.
am . d. f..s a. f.,.#t. f,t.f ,a,, 4. mod. %
a. L.. rnJrogo5J and Louis Eoutz
| we're i0ruucrif ia patturfanlp 80
| candy makers pul ran IA establish
| mtnt on wert, Fret 5 iutn street, near
luu Equitable Coop. IL was Kuown VI
he "lNOuR kaudy kituucu;n blt
wnUn inst nfe occurred there which
aau tiucr lnrmed tnu subIuct of several
! lunls Ia the lhird district court, the
| paftnrmhip was dissolved. Subsr.
quuut 10 tue lse TuUugo0I claimed
/ .uAt kllitz, wu- wuull stum 90 nave
| uron rumutnng OF Salient pnttuetn
lu tho uusiucfr, huu detained n Hum.
Uvf OF candy ,o0is, etc, uoiuna-
iug 10 him, aud A. he was unable 1
obtain them from dim alter rupegtc
dtmaldr, he instituted a suit in Ca.
| Commissioner Martins cour, IN TO-
| good wanteI 500 as tho value oil thr
to0ls-in default Of their hou.ruturu
-and slUJ damage but judgment
was rcuueftd Tor so is,s than tue
former amount, while the damages
were assrusrd at s25, Win costs.
From this order VI tho lower court
/ tho defendant now brought az tue
case on appeal to tie ihitd district
6 urt. His attorney was .. II. LuNis,
sud g.. >. kiuney appeared fJr the
| plaiutn.
rhe defense wanted 10 show that the
Tools were thu lr perry OF kIliiz,
| After bUth sides hau beun uliy heard
ANU the testimony Was very conflict
ing-ihu jury retired " consider their
verdict nj 1880.
This afternoon, ut 9 O'Clock, tho Jury
| brought va verdict for the plainiii,
assessing the value Of the goous NJ $40
anu fixing the damages at 500. On
| the latter amount plaiDiili's council
threw of s0u; 500 only having been
now Rskeu iOr.
tbs verdict was by nine Jurors only,
10 which tue defendants counsel 0U-
jecled, but the Of sction was OvuTuled
anu n Il teen days' stay allowed.
now FOR ARTHUR nRowN.
At last the decks have been cleared
for action Ia the $50 600 damage suit
Tor libel brought by Attorney Arthur
! Brown ag lost thB Salt LaRe Tribune
Publishing c1mpsuy, anu this after.
aeon the hilgAuSs are hshting Ia real
earnest.
In February l, 1893, occurred Salt
Lake Clty's election, and On mat &C.
ysslon the plaintiti acted as one OF the
July appointed Judges. In the course Of
the eventual day Liberal voter
named Patrick Hegeny pre'entei MIN.
self ut one OF tnu IOlls IN the Fourth
| precinct, but whsL lao essayed 10 cast
his ballot it WAS rejected by Judge
Brown. The voter feit much mortified,
aud his modification increased wheu
| that same Blown met him on MAN
street lust alter election and--ns he
says-iniofmed him that he hal tho
least desire to keep out Of trouble lac
mad better seek pastures now; In other
word, Hogeny was oounsulei 20 "get
out OF toWn" forthwith. Heseny, Il
would appear, poured his story, found.
ed on these alleged facts, into the
| Tri6tno's ear, aud that newspaper next
Jay enlightened the roadilg public
upon the whUlo matter. The plAinun
claims that he vas grossly libeled
in the "WTlle up" but what
ne seems 10 hud tho greatest
fault with was the concluding
portion OF the article, IA which he II
| dubued ga buli.d ziug aristocrnll'
MIR. Brown maintains that there IL MT
particle oi that Ingredient IN his en-.
ire composition, aud no asks thu court
aud Jury 10 endorse this declaration by
awarding hin a good round sum M
damages for the injury TO his feelings.
The case would nave boon heard
before but for tue ab ence Of Hegeny,
whom tue defendants counsel, despite
the great diligence exercised, were un-
Able L. locate unlil a day or two ago.
He Is one ot tneiri principal witnesses,
and To navs allOHtd Tue htaTiug ~
ptoeeed without boiag iirst assured OF
Ills prp.,ure would lave been equal ~
plnving Hamlet without tue prince.
Judcr Henderson and Attorney G..
Ia. VHTian rBpTogeut the plaintin;
Powefs & Hiles will watch the inter.
eats OF the tribune Publishing 20.
TiIERE WAS so pEFESsE HERE.
The ne OF Miigley 4 Sous Go. Va
Kunkel Bros. took about fiys minutea
To Inv this afternoon, j. II.
| Movie was attorney Tor tho plaintiff;
| thefe was no defense. Tue Bum
| claimed was Sb58, ON Nh assigned nc.