Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1895-02-14
THE DISTRICT COHRT.
Cases Against Valentine Continued
Till March 9Th.
TnECAsE AGAINST THE U. Z. r. II.
Chester Call Demands $4,000 as
Damages for an Alleged Breach
Of Faith.

There was only one case tried by
jury In the Third district court this
morning, ana that was tho case fot
$4,000 damages against The U. =. Il.
Il. Co., by Chester Call, which Is ex.
peoted to occupy the attention Of the
court this afternoon and all day 10.
mr''ow.
Tho four cases against Charlie
Valentine were called up and con-
iinuei I'll March 4lh.
10 tAe case Of CAaf. l.. Taylor W A.
G. Aiamlon ct al; dcisult VI defend.
anti was ,rdefcd.
The case Of Chester Gail Va the
Union Pacific Railroad company was
then taken go. In THE case, which
Uaf begun before Jury late yesterday
afternoon, tie plsiuuh alleges that IN
1852 AMI lb5l no entered into a uou
tract with the Union Pacihc,hy which
the plaintiff agreed TO sell and deliver
on board the doiendanu 'cafa at Aspen
aud Hiiliard, Wyoming, certain TIM
Dor, apacih1i In the contract, the dc.
lunJants agreeing 10 pay certain pf.cs1
Tor the umUer.
Nawliua q Cfllchlov appear Tor the
plaintiff am Attorney Il. l.. Williams
Tor the deituIauts.
Chester Can was placed on the Wit
ncsa stand this morning and testified
that he had a. Hilliafu anu Aspen
aud piled up la the mountains ready
for defendauts, timber estimated tt
50, 09l 90.
Phunun offered go evidence a
! memorandum sh1wiug tho dates, mum.
ber Of care, kinds u timber, ste, duliv.
cred % defendants under the contract,
Plaintin's counsel asked wit ess us
u tho lose sustained In dragging timber
to tue cars 90 be- loaIei, by reason OF
the failure Of the utfiudant company
10 put In a switch or extension Of tie
track.
Attorney Williams - DO you rely
upon your memory for these figures2
Wltness-N0, siri on the memorials
dum made ~ the conclusion Of the
year.
Defense objected on the ground that
the memorandum was not made co.
tcmpofaneUuH with the w.rk being
done, but after tue work was CONF
pleted.
The objection was overruled and an
tue price paid for the ditiorott kinds OF
timber.
PlAintih then offered In evidence a
letter from Mr.. Gail TO Mr.. GrifdR,
purchasing agent Of the Union Paeihc
company.
Defense objected to the letter on tue
ground that It was written after the
contract was made AMI partly per-
formed aud that II was hoafaay as not
given under oath, and the wttnefs
should be made 10 testify 10 this came
! matter.
Plaintiff desired to read from au.
thOritles on the question, AMI would
leave u Tor the present. and 70 on with
other evidence.
WItIess stated that the ooutrac,
price was s2i. 62i 05,
The quettisn W admitting the letter
feicrruu 20 aa evidence was then
brought up and Attorney Rawlins read
from the different authorities 10 show
that letter should he admitted In eyl-
deuo" u tue patty 10 whom 10 was nd
| dressed failed TO answer the came, even
though tue letter be written after the
contract Is made. And II a reply DO
inside then both letter aud anaWor
should DO offered together.
Attorney Williams argued that the
cntes cited were dideTuul 60 the one
now before the court, Ia this case IL ls
question Of contract, and when a let.
Ter II admitted IL 10 Tor the purpose Il
establishing q fact. This letter offered
Ia evidence was only a charge against
the company, anu was not evidence OF
facu.
The court ruled that tue letter was
not aJmissible.
The plaintiffs offered In evidence
The lett written fsJm tho defendant
company's agent 20 plalutT, aud IL
was admitted. Oiner letters were also
presented, s.Glu o. which were
admitted aud OIuers rejected, ana tt
1880 tue court to0h Tecuis until .
O'Clock.