Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1894-04-25


c0mpany'a sutyicr. The defendants,
VI cauue, do not regard themselves
responsible for the assault, which Ap.
posftd 20 DO "A most uuwhrrauiablu
attack upon an old man.
Attorneys T.. >. Nafiau aud A, v.
Taylor ara Tor tho plaintiff aud Judge
Mafshsll appears fgf tue defendant
company.
TIE tfialwill last all Of today.
FoR 1uE rLAiN1fFp.
The case OF Charles Nader Va tho
Taylor, Kinney Armstrong com.
pany, also part heard yesterday,
reached the jury In Judge Bafloh's
g art nj l0.io this morning. Tho facts
were reported in ycsterdny's NEWS
anu related 10 the payment VI certain
moneys 10 one W. n. D5uuell. II
was olAimed that, by inadvrrtencc, this
money got into the hands Of the wrong
parties, VIA, tue defendants.
The iutou-ll 10 Hound for the
plaiuiiii In tho sum OF gils ~. Thirty
days' say was granted defendants 10
niu statement on mntion f0r new
I.al.
HEARD WITHOUT MARKHAM.
The next case was that Of the Grand
Rapids (Mionigin) School Furniture
Go. " frank MJntOe-i suit In re-
pleyin. Attorney &. >. Kinney Ap.
peafcd Tor the plaintiffs, but the
defendant did MT answer, neither was
an attorney there b represent hm.
IL was stated by Mf. Kinney, however,
that +. =. Markham was originally
counsel tor Monroe, but that he
(Matkhaml had just left tho oountry.
Mt Kinney insisted, therefore, upon
proving his case aud Jury was em.
paneltd, the plcadings aud certain
dispositions being put In. The total
amount demanded WAS Ss6i0s, part.
~ made zap Of a claim Of {bla
Tor ds1 opera chairs supplied uy
the plaintiffs 10 doiendRupH order, tor
bis opera house Ia Commercial street,
this city, Ia December, 1891.
TheJuty, alter hearing tue PLAINTIFF
side and without leaving the box,
found for plaintiff on the actual claim
In the sum OF $500, aud n, damages
s55AOs.
EARLs fuRNIruRE 90. IT Al.
The succeeding case was that OF
rhos. l.. Lecdom a Co., Of Bristol, Pa,
W the Earls Furniture aud Carpet Co.
and l. a. Benton, eK.U. 3. marshal for
Utah Territory. Richards aud MOyle
tor the plaintinS Sutherland and
HOwAt TOT the defendants.
Tho action II brought for the recov.
cry Of certain goods anu cnattels al.
legged TO have been tskcn from the
plaintiffs At suudTy times between July
10Th anu December lat, 1899, and since
withheld IRON tueir possession; or 20
have judgment Ia the sum Of 81 ,661, the
value thereof, IN case delivery can.
not be had. Further, damages are
claimed Ia the amount " 500, Tor the
alleged wrongful aolsof the defendants
In obtaining possession, together with
costs OF suit.
10 IL set forth that the defendant cor
p0fAtion was ius0lyont al the time OF
the pretended purchase, aud that such
fact was well Known " the officers Hud
agent Of the defendants nj the time;
that such pretended purchase was
made for the purpose Of cheating anu
defHudlng plaintiff; that lho dc,
PENDANT corporation Intentionally Oh.
tanned the goods without pay.
ing, anu suppressed the lsut
from plaintiffs that ihoy were insOi-
vent. since obtaining possession OF
the gOodt--On December .7th, 1902
the defendant corporation made a pre-,
tended confession of Judgment In this
court for sSl, b38,31 ~ favor OF John L.
Ballard, whom plaintiffs aiiego 10 be-
relative VI the officers anu stock
holders anu IN control VI the concern.
A pretended judgment was likewise
confessed Tor Sl8,67O,sO "a favor Of j.
A. Ear, also an interested party In the
concern, as president, director anu
stoukhOideL That by virtue Of the
executions Issued on such Judgments
the defendant Benton took possession
VI all the properly aud assets OF the
corporation ~ INC yalusOf 81 $50.
Ia bis answer the defendant Benton
alleges that the property levied upon
was that VI the ueiru ant corporation
anu liable 60 execution, and that he
has not withheld the Same unlAwiully.
The hearing viii occupy tho remain.
der OF the day.