Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1895-06-12
The SUPREME COURT.
r,r, Decisions Handed Down BY
lhe Judges To-Day.
o,srs ARGUED ann SUBMITTED
,.u Elmer l.. Richie for Crlmi'
nal Ilbal-suit for Damages
Aggiu,t the H. g. W.

,t,d.v in the case u David T..
w.,,, plsin,Ifi and appellant, VI John
v.llv. G. a. Wells and Jude Wclls'
I.s.dspt. and respondents. This
.,,,vsr.y arose In the probate court
IN Elder county over mn order
sh,t court, revoking the letters Of
',.,i,,stntIon Of the appellant
~, had been appointed adj
.i,t,r,,lr ot the estate OF Henry
r. wells, deceased. There were aIs'
,,,s,sl ether orders made,am eng hem
,,tos one discharging the surelies Of
,r.sppsllnnl. From all these orders
a appeal was taken u the district
,,t af the FOuit1 district, ana
~ srpeal TO the Supreme Court Is
~, AZ, order Of tho district cout', lis
n,,,sipg the app cal taken from tue Ot.
A., Of the probate court. TIE Judg.
ri Of the lower court was silifmed
by the Supreme COuri.
nsoisIous were rendered Affirming
he dcris'on Ia the case Of tho People
Jth Territory Of Utah VI William
March. defendant aud appellant, AZ
,s,isd ifgm tho decision Of w. II.
Enc. in tue Fret diettict, and In the
20 on the United StateB Of America VS.
Sim Duggins, defendant aud spi eliani,
.rpeaI,d from tue decision Of u, W.
Iaf cb, In the Third district.
ATuoRSEY WTCHiE.
III. c,se Of the People OF the Toni.
,afy OF Utah, appellants and respond.
ms, " Elmer T.. Richie, defendant
and respondent, was the tiist case
apufi. Tue appeal IN this ease ~
tom un order overriding motion IN
a,frs, u judgment and overfu ing mo-
Ion Tor n ucw trial Rud from tbs final
luigmvut VI conviction.
III, case WIS brought against the
eeirpdaut In tue Third district court
bf criminal libel, In publishing - cef-
nln circular, reviewing the financial
condition Oi what II dsnUmiuates "the
MtgIfhn Building anu Losu nss0ci.
alton" The testimony showed that the
tf5ssgutiug wltnCss, +. H., MCOiurrin,
vas pfssi Ient OF tue Salt Lake Build.
iug and Loan association, ami &. >,
kinney attorney. That from tlmU TO
time siuce 1898, certain anonymous
circulars hal appeared. Wilucslo. ,e,li.
GtI tI ertlngR person 20 into the post.
lsis ihey claimed ~ identify the
ftf.On or Ricuie, ana that on examl.
ta.i0n found that tho letters mailed ny
him contained circulars upOu which
the prosecution II founded.
Tue Jury rendered a verdict agninst
ieicndAui. Defendant uppsnls on the
gIound that the Indictment does not
sle pubic ollonsv, thattEB evidences
o. not tuiiicilut TO justly tue verdict
nd TIA. tIfUTs were niauo by the lower
,.ur.
ltlI ACAfSsT I'M y. q. ".
Thecs'O' Jogcph kTaniz, plaintiff
ana ayl ellsn', Va the RIO Gfaude
Western Runway company, ueiendaut
sud TvspOudct /, appealed from the de-
Usl0l Of Judge Merritt Ia the Third
district.
Tue action VS. brought against de-
iendaut e mpauy tor damages for per.
sJual iulut,r received whiio pa,seu-
GET on tue cOmpauy's train or intend.
ing To become one. The complaint
charges the TesponIepie, In two cOuuta,
win assiultg committed by the servant
u fgspIudunt anu two Others, upon
appellant, NJ the station OF Lower
Crossing. Tho mat count charges tnRt
vas tts,uitoi by tho section foreman,
nl the second cOuat charges that
llAinul afterwards returned ~ the STA.
gun 10 Iutchass "a ticket when he was
ssaln assaulted by tue afcyiou foreman
Eud two ether pououf. ID images were
Nkgu Ia the sum VI $1,000 on each
count no answer oil thu defendant
Wasa specific denial OF the allegations,
Ou The trial of tbs case the jury 10.
turned verdict IN lgyoS Of lns de.
itndani on tho lfst cause OF action,
and Tot the plaintiff In the second, as
ittsiug The dana yes at 1900. a new
ltlAl on lns iiT.t count WAS usniei ap-
lellAnt, but was granted respondent on
the second count. From each order
aud Judgment tho plaintiff appealed.
Aigutd aud Submitted.
4 rROMissORY NOTE.
The case Of the FiIst National bank
o. Nophi, plsintlti and respondent, VI
Shagits F0Olc, W. A. &. Bryan, q. :.
Iingey uLd Alma Hague, deferds ate
hnu appellants, WAS argued aud sui.
hlHvl' lhy case Is HppoaleI rom the
Fll'i district court.
The complaint IN this case allegcs
lhat on Jan. n, 1894, at Nephi, dr-
leulhtt' Bryan, FUOtr AMI riugey,
anu Alma Hague as security, by nor
igmltsofy note, Promised to pay 10
llt OSIer Of said plaintiff $4,000, that
~ maturity the came was pIeBrnlod
Suu payment thereon was refused.
judgment was therefore demanded Ia
'It sum stated with Interest.
Tue deiul dlnts denied that on Jan.
~ ls9ii they hai given the note, an
NA'el uy the plsinliti, and nllrge that
lUof 10 May ~, 1890, certain citizens
Auu property owners OF Nsphl were
u's IJuu 20 secure tue survey, location
HLu construction 10 anu through said
v'y OF a certain projected railroad,
namely; Tue Utah, Nevads n CAN.
,'uh uilrjad,Nnd 10 tnal end nigota-
n,h' were mauo with Francls IieTnau,
Nh' pto.etsed TO represent this pro-
uls OF said road. That pursuant o
,uul negotiations a contract Ia writing
hua mhlb between tue Cltil-ns anu
eIhin iu which II was agreed that
sue IoAu SHOULD he constructed WI tam
,"9 yeaTe, II the citizens would convey
herman tract OF land for the bent
Nv " SAID road, 1t Is further claimed
pat Alma Hague, cashier OF the
rT' National sUauk Oi Nepbi, repre-.
"h'el 10 defendants that the tank mai
uiehhso' the land aud paid therefor
l1ovI III behalf Of tho ciliZsLs and
W,leily owner, that Herman would
aA' 'he LAM, either ny rsiunding the
u INT - tbs railroad would DO con-
a 49, "A I.l.