Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1895-10-21
WHAT THE LAW DOES
IuUorlan! Ruling 10 tho Atwood Case
Regarding Wills.
ple MINING DISPUTE HEARING


case, involving important pue's""
relative TO the proof OF wlilt' IN
effect the court tays tina, the Intention
Of makcr Of will cannot be shown
BIZ his declarations outside Of tue wi'ls
eontents, The suit under cousidefa'
lion was brought by Florence Atwood
through Amelia a. Sutton, her moInef
and guardian, tor share Of the M''iop
Atwood estate. The deceaioi had avs
trlbu.ed his property by will, ami hau
failed to mention Florence At"oou' II
was sought % show that no ala no. IN
landing that che should have no part
Of his property, for the reason 'ha' 90
,.,d an. was not his child. The VIII
aid nothing OF thi', aad on W lace
rave no Information OF the decea'ou''
intention regarding The claimant An
.,bau.,ive hearing was had before the
cour,. and today Judge Merritt gave
his decision, reversing the ruling OF
the Salt Lake county probate court
which held that the claimant had been
Intentionally omitted from the willard
tber,sot, bad no right 10 any psrt OF
the estate. Judge Merritt said there
vas no dispute a. 10 the claimant being
omitted from the Will, 40 there were
bot two que,tiona IN the case, A. ioi'
lowsi
/, L. the petitioner n daughter aud
helr nj law OF the drcessed?
9, II she IL, does " appear that such
omission was Intentional on the part
Of tho tcstatoiY
AZ TO the frst question, after review
ing the relations OF tho deceased Win
Tbs mother 81 Florence az his plural
wife. JuIge Merritt said: 81 hAve not
the slIghtest hesitation In determining
that Florence IL tue natural daughter
Df tue deceased" He further
toIntsd out that ~ such child hhe was
iegitimated by congressional enact
mept. and adds, at IL therefore fcy
opinion that tho petitioner Florence
Atwood 10 the daughter and heir NJ
aw OF the deceased Millen Atwood"
Upon the question, Judge Merritt
saId the oral declarations OF the d..
ceased ae 10 hls Intentions A. 10 Flor
ence could not be legally admittoj;and
that from the evidence legally aimissl.
bic ait does not appear that her umls-
sion from the Will OF the deceafed was
intentionod, ana that therefor, she 10
entitled 10 Intervene In the matter OF
the estate and as party 70 the s-ttie-
ment thereof, aud u entitled To the
distributive nhare OF her deceased
fathef,s estate a. provided for by stat
nte, and that the decree In the probate
court TO tho contrary should be re-
versed and the cause remanded TO thai
court"
A mo MINING CONTEST.
David Keith and Thomas Kesrn,, o
Park City, were Ia court today on nj
order to show cause why they shout,
not be punished for contempt In tn,
auit OF Michael Shaug hnessy Va DAvi,
Keith, Thomas kearns and the Bilvci
Mining company. In this suit tn,
plaintifi, as owner OF the Maynowo
group OF mines near Park Cry, ask
for 800, 900 damages from the defend
ants for alleged infringement upon hi
grounds and the wrongful extraction Q
ores thorefrom. Upon former showinl
the court granted an order permitting
the plaintiff 10 make surveys OF th
defendAnts' property, In thu under
ground workings, that being tho onl.
way In which the PLAINTIFF propett.
could DO reached In the matter In diI
pute.
Whom this order was issued, tn
plaintiff sent surveyors Into the dc
iendants' mines. The defendants al
lowed certain surveys 10 be made, bu
refused TO allow others, Ia the 90Ofoo
and l, l00-foot levels, for the allegei
reason that said tunnels did not 20 Ia
ward tho plhintifi's ground. AZ th
hearing today, this position was assert
ed to the court, and II was stated tina
an offer had been maze TO permit TIL
plaintiff, attorneys to 20 through tn
forbidden property,or 10 have the oouf
appoint q surveyor, who should b
sworn to disclose 10 the court alon
whether the tunnels did or did not 4
In the direction OF the plaintiffs PROF
erty. To this the plaintiff insisted this
he had no knowledge OF any tnrea
ened suit by other patlie, towar
whose property the eOO-ioot an
l,i0O.ioot level tunnels were d
rseled. He did understand TIN
they went Into his property, mn
knew that fact could be determined
aHurvey only; aud m TO the survey
proposed, TO diVulgs facts only 10 Il
court, the plaintiff insisted that a
former order OF the court was suiI
cient, and "a II hhd not been co
formed TO, the defendants were In co
tempt. Upon this point the arRumen
aud testimony were listened TO
length.
Toe defendants claim that no pol
VI Me tunnels which they refuse 10
the PLAINTIFF surveyors enter reach
nearer than nifty feet from the plat
tifi's property. They also say that
allow the survey now made wou
stop 1850 men from working for q
days, ut u cost OF $4,000 per day; al
further that this proposed survey
wanted to aid this A lllanre cpmnai
In lite suit against the Silver KIN
anu rs n result OF what has been DO
already the Alliance has changed /
direction Of some OF It's wOrsinAs. q
claim Of the survey being IN tho A
lance interest 10 based upon the IA
that two OF the plainllti's surVeyC
also are surveyors Tor tho ALLAN
company.
The plaintiff claimed that II was 1
true that tho deiendante' tunnels d
not approach nearer than 80 feet lri
tho Mayn1wer property. lie clAsm
that thr evidence Ia tue utiidnvit OF
Il. Brooks was not true, becAus' A. 1
not slate the whole truth, being ca
July drawn 10 avoid doing 40. 81
vtyut GoTlinskl, on behalf OF
plAntiti, tostii ned TO boiug denied
mission 10 Bnme parts, anu cont
dicting some OF the statements ms