Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1894-01-12
TIE SUPREME COURT
Banker WhilmOre Hust Pay lis Fine
or Go 10 jail.
nr PLAYS nI,gALAsr CARD.
Mining Companies on tbs boarl,.-
Something OF Ute thurch Case
u spute About lcc Ponds.

Whom the Territorial sunrtm,
Court assembled this morning th,il
ll0nors handed down a couple oil
oplniOne. Al the JUDGES wtre uHon
the bench, namely, Chiui Juiilcc Zane,
Associate justices Mineb Bafteh aud
Saith.
= JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
Ia the case Of tine Lexington Mining
Company, plaintiff aud resp .ndcui, y,
the OH Jordan Mining Hui Milling
Company, defendant aud appellant,
Judge smith delivered the opinion. 10
was au action by the plaintiff company
to recover Si.Ji5.gs, with intorest, Us.ns
the onc-half Of certain moneys paid
out ana EXPENSES incurred b. the
plaintiffs 10 svcping in repair water
ditch or canal owned jointly Ivy the
partirs % this litigation. Plaintiff
claimed ihat the money was expended
/ pursuant 90 written contract whereby
| defendant was 10 pay halt On the
| trial Ia Judge IanU's court the jury
found tor tie plaintiff Tor tho amount
claimed, aud thU 5uprcme COuft now
affirmed the judgment on tuUh Nod.
Ing. Ju1gus Miner aud Baticn con.
CURED.
ABOUT 4 COST BILL.
The nfst Gaze argued today was
that OF Samuel Marie, plainul aud
up. ellani, Va Ogden cry Street tail.
way company, ueiuldant aui rtrponl.
| uuL Tue CaHn Wns tiled va Judge
Miners court At Ogden, anu Judgment
tcndeEuG On the luya verdict
/ against the ruHp0ndeut Tor $50.
| lntrcupon appellant tiiui his cost uili,
Ia which hU made Cuiiain charges Tor
/ thu attendance Of Witnesses, amount
/ my 10 Sl7. Respondent objected 10
this anu moved Go tax the SAINT, On the
| around that thv Witnesses uid not np.
/ IUuT iUlorc thr clrfH OF the court with.
] iu two days ana claim their fees. Ihu
/ lower court struck from the Govt bill
| tue lros which hud not been 90 claimed,
and the only question TOT this court 10
| decide WINS could the plaintiff be- de-
/ pfivgu OF the costs due hlu wltutstgH
simply because they did not iUIgu their
| claim within the wv days, ~ pro-
viued by eucti0n 6ii7, page sU9, Com.
| pilto Law. OF utuh, ls5h, ana whether
/ cUHth should 40 thIyu under Tue United
States 100 uill, or under tne 'CvffitOTiai
iee bill.
DI.Mis'ED.
II. II. Jones, plaintiff and appellant,
" Charles n. Davis anu Lizzie DAylA,
the Brigham CITY Mercantile anu
| Manufacturing association, Elias
4 tHuAau L. "a n.Hu .H.r A a. Au.us
duieniants snu respondents. From
the Fourth District
~ IHE CHURCH CASE.
Toe Hon. h. 3. Richards submitted
| the following for the courts approval,
and there being no objection tilaftd
by U. \. District Attorney judd, tho
bamu WIS passed;
". $. oi America, plniutin, We the
late corporation o. the Church Of
Jesus Christ Of Lgtter.dHy saints,
ct al, defendants.
Whereas It Ia made 10 appear TO the
court that Henry w. Lawrence, ~ re-
cviver OF taid late corporation, hal
| loaned 10 various banks tue moneys la
his hAnds ~ such receiver under the
orders VI this court; anu
Whereas the terms VI said loans
| provided that the same should be- Te-
pAil 60 tAid receiver after thifty days
notice OF nu intention 10 demand re-
payment OF tho same; aud
Whereas In this month Of November,
1893, tue said receiver gave eBid notice,
~ ~ 10 be m position 10 comply with
any order this court might make Tor
the final disposition VI said property;
and
Whereas In compliance with said
notice the said banks were forced after
tue thirty days expired 10 keep on
hand tho said funds anu weTo thereby
prevented from gaining any pTyht by
the loan Of said fund.-;
Therefore, by the consent OF the al.
torneys for the respective paftles 10
this action, II II hereby ordered that
the said receiver shall not collect any
interest on said loans ACQUIRING alter
tho 3lst day OF December, 1893, and
that said receiver shall not be- liable
for such interest.
Dated January l2lh, 1894.
ICE PONDS AND ICE HOUSES.
The case OF John Farr ct al, plain.
tills and respondents, vs. George u.
Gniiilh, deiendautanl appellant, came
up for Argument ON appeal from the
Fourth district. IL was an action for
breach Of contract. On this part OF the
plaintiffs It was alleged that In June,
1890, the defendant leased 10 them and
one Mark Hopkins, Tor tue period OF
four years, certain Ice houses and
ponds In Ogden city, defendant agree.
Ing 10 supply The ponds with the usual
quantity ~ water during tho leo
making season; but that during tns
,eafons Of ls9l.2 no wholly failed Ia
thlt; whereby plaintiffs could not an
their wh0leaHlH ana fttail trade, 10
their damage In the sum " $4,000. THE
defendants admitted gll the allegation
except the alleged breach OF contract
aud damage. a verdi twas Returned Tor
the plaintiffs Tor 1900 aud $40 cost. |
Defendant moved iJr now trial on
four gTounds--eTrUrs VI law, that tbs
verdict was against law insuiiiciency
Of evidence to justify iHe verdict, and
newly ii6cOvered testimony. The mo.
ton was ovefruled BY Judge Black.
burn, ami hence the appeal.
LEFT IN ans coin.
in the matter u the application Of
George q. WhiImorr, The Nephi bauk.
or, for writ " hnbeiB corpus, Judge
Miner delivered the opinion Of the
court, In which judge Baftch con
CURED and Judge smith disavnted.