Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1895-01-23
THE SUPREME COURT.
Two Cases Only Have Come Up for
Argument Today
ONE HAVING BEES DISMISSED.
No Opinions Yet, But Somn May BE
Expected Within q Few
Days.

The Territorial Supreme court has
been In session again today, and the
several matters reported below were
disposed Of during the session;
ADMITTED 40 PRACTICE.
Upon motion Of Attorney W. A.
Lee, Nathan J. Harris, member OF
the unf Of the supreme court Of Micui.
gan, was admitted 90 practice here.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
By consent Of the parties 10 the suit
the appeal OF J. W. Guthrie We Francis
j.. Roche anu Caroline NJ. J. Roche
(.rom The Fourth distric,)was uismilsed
and n rumittitur ordered.
SUIT OvER A rRONussoRy NOTE,
The FIRST case argued wss that OF b.
E. Gregg 81 Coz plaintiffs and respond.
cuts, vs. Hyrum GrJesu,cb, Nicholas
II. Gr0eabock, Henry At, Ryan, Alex.
Wood and T., Il. Basuhe, defendant;
Henry NJ. Ryan, appellant The last
named was represented By Anderson
s. Anderson; Tor the respondents Frank
Is. Stephens aud BeunUr n. smith.
Appeal from tho Iuiu diBtriut-
Chief Justice Merritt
Suit wus originally brought 20 feuoy.
or from the Two Gr0osuuuEs the sum OF
al7bO due upon a prOmias0ry note,
which was endorsed by Mvssrs,
Ryan, Wood aud RnsChu. The
defendant Ryan fled q demurrer TO
tue complaint which was uyefru IUd,
by consent Of the parties, he being al
lowed twenty days 10 separately
answer. Herein ho alleged that the
note sued upon was aJld anu delivered
TO the plaintiff by tho o3.detondaut
i.nsCho, but that prior 70 this Ryan
especially instructed RasCuU that iu
casb tho latter shUuld transfer the note
hu should erase his (Ryau'r) name
from the bnck OF II a. an unduuvr that
this wus promised, hut Inadvertently
overlooked. 10 WIS further Get form
shat Ht the timU the motto was trans
iyrrod by Raschr no expressly informed
plaintiffs Of this agreement.
Plaintiff then moved tuBigikU Ryau's
auswbr from the dies Hs % sham, and
for judgment ON tho pltauings. Tue
g. urt grauLgu this anu entered juug-
muut agalust the defendant Ryan 90
the sum Of S2,OOAi5, VIII o0atH tHNUu
90 5000.
Appeal ia taken from the cougps
order several errors being assigned.
h MATTER on IQuIIy.
Tho Ogden State Bank, piaintid',
respondents Of to the Bakers, and APP
pullants "a 10 Brough, ys VIM. BARKER
MARY Anu BARKER Franklin J. Barker
aud Leroy Barker appellants, ami
ChuTleH NJ. BfOugh, respUnuont
W. A. Les anu II. HI. Henderson
Tor TINS plAinlil bank; Richards *
Mcmillan Tor the Barkuu; Evans ~
Rogefs anu A. q. Home Tor g. M.
BrOugu.
Appeal from fourth dis,rlot-Judgo
Miner.
This was q bill IN equity Ia aid Of
execution 10 set inside two gOnyoyaucts,
the fret being dbed given by The
defendants, william ana Mary Ann
Barker 10 franklin J f.. AMI Leroy Bar
ksr, aud the second a mortgage decd
given by William, Mary Ann anu
Franklin J. and LEROY Barker 10
Charles NJ. lir0ugh upon certain lands
and premises lu Weber county. the
ease was heard before the cUuftsittiug
without a jury, upon the pieadiugs ami
also upon the evidences taken before
Attorney j. +. Smith ~ referee.
The district court found that the
mortgage given by William, Leroy aud
Franklin j. Barker aud their wives 70
Br1ugn was valid, anu that m g.
Brough, the action should be- dismissed,
That securing the mortgage given 10y
the other defendants g. Erugu note
or notes gioen by the defendant Frank
lin J. Barker did not invalllate said
mortgage.
Motion fora new trial was 0yerTulodi
hence tho appeal.