Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1894-04-13
The DISTRICT COURT.
Tis Lou S Kolill Insurance Money Slill
Under Debate.
JUDGE BARrcu HAS RETURNED.
Action Against the u. a Il. q. Rail.
road Co., by a Former Employ,
On Account Of Wages.

There have been no now develop
menA In the case Of the German.
American lnsutauce 60. Of New York
vs. Louis KYlilz, the hearing Of which
was again taken up before Chief Jus.
lice Mefriltand jury this morning.
Much the same testimony that was
ndiueei at the criminal trial Of
k7liiE, GU a charge Of arson, IL being
introduced over again, the plaintiffs
seeking 10 show that the defendant,
when ho Insured the premises In
question: made false representations ia
regard 10 the value VI the stock and
fixtures. and that he himself was
responsible Tor the IRE which partially
consumed them. The amount which
plaintiffs desire TO rcclvef, as paid.up
Insurance money, Ia Sl,lg7, Interest
aud costs.
The case will occupy quite another
de" before It reaches the jury.
SHORT ORDERS.
A. :. Blake W. the Rocky Mountain
OH Go. Ia this case II was ordered
that n rt-i delivery bond DO furnished in
tue sum OF $500, sixty days being
allowed
B. a. NJ. Ffoiseth W Ole Patterson.
Five days additional time allowed the
defendant to answer.
a CLAIM FOR WAGES.
Judge Baflch has returned from
Ogden aud this morning, with Jury,
listened " the evidence put forward on
the hearing Of an action brought by
William A. Cooper against the Denver
and Rio GfAnde Railroad Co., 10
recover the sum oi 500, with intereat
from March lst, 1891, alleged 10 be due
Tor services rendered by plaintiff as a
CLERK and bookkeeper during ths
months OF January and February,
1891.
Attorney Frank Pierce represented
the plAinIin; Attorney Thompson
with whom was Judge Bennettl Ap.
Feared on behalf Of tue defendant com.
pauy.
The defense denied that plaintiff
worked for them In the capacity
named, but II admitted that during the
month OF January, 1891, he was la
their employ A. cashier Of itA xpfess
office In this city, Tor witch he was to
receive the sum OF $50, anu which
amount had been fully paid 10 him. IL
~ claimed, however, that plAlntln was
incompetent 10 discharge the duties
required Of him, and that by his
negligence he occasloned great
loss 10 the company's business.
AZ soon A. tubs was disco yored plaintiff
was discharged, and the amount then
due him Ne wage. applied In partial
settlement Of the losses caused by his
iucompetency, which latter, say the
defendants, far exceeded any claim he
hal against them. For separate de-
tense the company answer that tho
plaintiff, nj the end OF his employ.
ment, was unable 10 account for a
large sum belonging 10 them, VIA,
slii.sl. Deducting the $50 due 10
defendant "a wages, the defendants
claim there h still owing them from
him s3ji9l, aud for this they ask
judgment, with Interest and costs.
Inc jury found for the plaintiff In
be sum OF sl0s.40. and thirty days'
stay was granted ~ prepare statement
on motion Tor a new trial.
oRoEsBEcK AGAIN.
The case Of q. A. Sawyer VI John
A. Gtorsbeck Il on trial before Jury
In Judge BaTIoh's court this afternoon.
IL IL an action 10 recover $3.50 on
note, with Interest.
CONTINUED.
Tho case Of James IL. Erickson vs.
III. J. Erickson ct nj was continued I'll
the lBth inst,