Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1894-06-19


explanation upon any reasonable by
polhcsie other than tho Defendants
Rulllj the chain Of circumstances must
ue complete ami unbfJkon. "a Jury
VI inexperienced laymon could hardly
De expected 10 apply the rules apple.
able ~ this class OF testimony without
some assistance from the court"
Opinion by Judge Miner. Judges
Merritt aud Bartch conourriug.
the wu1MORE COMEDY.
Opinions were also rendered In the
i've cRsos In which Lewis A. Scott
Elliott ami George &. Whitm0rs are
tue chief participants. The details Of
these were published in the columns
OF the NEWS when the arguments were
made early in the present session.
10 the contempt proceedings arising
out Of the violation OF the injunction
by Whitmofe In regard 10 the removal
OF the measuring box, their honUrs held
that an appeal uid not lie 10 this court
from the Judgment and conviction
anu dismissed the same, Thereby Of.
frming the order Ui the district court,
anu fumanJiug the appellant 10 the
custody Of the US. marsha, 20 abide the
further order OF that court Opinion by
Judge Miner, Judge Merritt concur.
ring. Judge Smith diusentcd, "c3po.
cialiy upon the holding that the iuIg.
ment L. not appralablr."
La regard 20 the appeal from au order,
also made by Judge BntlUn, denying
/ WhitmOft's motion Tor n new trial
| Opinion by Judge Merritt, Judges
Miner aud Smith C0ucurringl the
order appealed from WIS reversed and
cot aside, with COSTS IN the appellant.
The court below h Instructed O. pro.
/ coed sui hear the motion Tor new
trial when lhu statement Is settled.
la the case In which Referee j. II.
| Harris figured 49, thu rrspJndcnt,
/ appeal was from au order Of tho ruird
I district court denying petition
Tor wit OF mandate. Judge
/ Merritt delivered the opinion,
/ Judges Miner AMI smith concufflng.
| rms order appealed from was reversed
| here also, with costs against j., A..
Scott Elliott Directions are Issued 10
the lower court to grant the writ as
prayed.
Ia tbs appeal from the Injunction
| granted by the lower court lIikuwlse
Judge Barlchl pcrpUtually retaining
| WhitmOru from changing the now %
waller (GfHtsy Trail creek from tho
measuring box, from taking any larger
quantity Of water than $1,000 Of "A cubic
/ loot per second, etc, suun appeal was
/ dismissed with costs. Judge Miner
endorsed the opinion thus; 81 cannot
concur with my brethren IN this case"
In the appeal OF whitmofe from
| Judge Bartuh's order reiusit x tue appel
| ianps application tO Tx thesupersedoas
! bond 10 De gwen 10 stay the judgment
ON appeal from the tinal decree, and
denying a Htay Of proceedings up0u the
/ injuuctiOnai order contained IN said
decree, the order appealed from was
ruvtTscl and HUt asi lU, the cause bsing
rrmandui 20 tue court below with In
/ BttuCtiOns 10 lN the amount OF super.
stdeas bond on appeal from the JUG.
munt. Judge Mertilps opinion was
cUucurred In by Judge Smith, VINO
filed separate opinion, setting forth
his reasons for concufriug.
Judge Miner dissented.
A LOTTERY BUSINESS.
The fret case argued was that OF the
| Mexican International Banking com.
pnuy Ilniutiis ami respondents, VI
I Henry L.chlenstuin, defendant rnd
Attorney Frank Pierce for the mp.
pellnui; G. Ira ktuUs nud :. II. Lewis
ior the spUndtuts.
Plaintiffs run what 10 known as the
"Juatrz Lottery" with headquarters
in old Mexico. They delivered lottery
tickets 10 the defendant at San Frau.
cisco for him 70 nell, anu it was claimed
on Sac hearing that balance Oi
Sl,Gs2.75 was due on these from him 10
the plaintiff company. Lichloustein
Insisted that the tickets were valueless
aud denied his liability, Judge Zane,
before whom the case was tried, IN,
strucied the jury To nud for the de-
fondant, anu this they did. A motion
for new ttinl was made by the plain
uhs, argued before Chief JuHtio
Merritt add granted. From that order
the defendant ptOsecutes this appeal,
contending that even n he hal col
lected money for tho tickets, as plain
ufls' agent, recovery oannot be had
the whole Transaction having been In
aid u lottery, hence prohibited by
law. The trial court took this View h
sustaining the Defendant objection.
THE EX.u. \. MARSHAL AuAtN.
Louis Brown o. al, plaintiffs and
aptellluts, vs. n. IL, Parsons, de
teuuAut anu respondent
Certain goods were aelzel on eNeCu
ton by the deiBndant ~ u. }. marsha
and pltintin rep.evine1 the same IN
this action. Subsequently judgment
was rendered against them. This ap
peal Ia taken from an order Of Judgj
Zane overriding a motion 10 ynclieant
set aside the Judgment
Attorney s. n. Lewis TOT the appel
lanls; Judge Judd and Smith * Smith
Tor the respondents.
COSCERNIEG PROPERTY.
The case Of James IA. Spargo, plain
tn and respondent, VI FrtE II. Mel
son, Hans q. Hansen, the Eccle
Lumber Go. ana g. Il, Belnnp, dc
lenIauts anu appellants, Ia under Hr
gumeut this afternoon, Appeal from
Fourth distriot-Juigs Miner TIT
litigation herein has arisen with re-
spect to q len on certain mOTtyagoi
premises.
Summer School al the University
Tue first session OF tho sunmu
school at tbs University Of Utah vii
anon on rhuraday morning for Teglu