Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1895-03-22
A HARD LEGAL GRIND
Tho Second Trial Of an Interesting
Action ID TFOYsL
DAMAGES AGAINST ARALRoAD 60


the trial Of Elmer b.. Richie, The
young Salt Lake attorney charged
with criminal libel ths being the
third day Of the investigation. Assist.
ont District Attorney i0wai made The
closing address Tor the prosecution,
and after Judge Barlch had briefly
charged the jury, the caso was given
into their hands about 1850.
Ason the preceding DAYS Of the afial
Frank r.. MoGurrlu, Lawyer Kinney
aud othots who have figured 90 promi-
Hcnty in tho matter were again 10
attendance.
MAT Wrrp CASH
The amount claimed 10y Ephta'm T.
Ellison from the Rio GnGdo Western
HALLWAY o.. was $500. The case wa'
given T. toe Jury late yesterday a.tar'
noon and this morning, In Judge
Mrrdt's court, they brought iu %
sealed verdict, awarding the pIaiutin
$3.50, lost !il lees Than he had cnimr
A stay Of thirty days WIS granted the
other sldo to prepare slnt,meut on me-
ton for new trial
The plaintiff sued 10 recover Tor the
loss Of olghty.onc head Of sheep
which were killed on the defendant
clmpany's line Of road on January
Sob, 1893, negligence beiug attributed
to tho defendants In having failed 10
keep their fences 10 proper repair The
sheep got upon the line, and were run
down by locomotive aud train Of
ears,
A TWICE TRIED ACHOS.
The case Of Louis Hyams and John
4. Erwin VI Simon Hamburger and ",
J. Salisbury was then called up IN
Judge Mefriips court aud a hearing be-
gun before jury.
Thisia the second time tho cause
has been tfiFd IN tue district court, a
now trial having been granted the
plaintiffs, asappollauls, by tho T'ttl'
torial Supreme court, on April l0lh,
1894.
Itisan action In lrover to recover
damages ioE tho alleged wrongful cor
version Of three pTomiuOry notes,
secured by 1900 shares of stock 10 the
Bullion-B Beck q Champion Mining
COMPANY, the notes having been exc.
Uutud by John Beck In favor Of the
plaintiff Hyams. Plaiuti1s alleged,
ia substance, that thoy were the own
ore OF the notes on November 18th,
1891, that two VI them were Tor 5000
olon aud one for sA,7l0.2O, bearing In.
tctest at per cent yer anuum, aud
secured ny the 200 shares II stock la
escrow Ia the state Bank o. Ugah, 70
be sold nj tho request r, tho legal
holder upon default Of payment being
made; that they were ol.itItd ~ the
immediate possession VI the notes anu
stock; that on the date named the de-
PENDANTS, being In possession OF the
same, uulawiuily disposed Of and con.
verified the notes and stock 10 their own
use, 10 plaiutitis damage In the sum
OF SO, 20l,0l.
The defendants denied these alleFr-
tions and aver that on the llth Of May,
1891, plaintiffs executed hnd delivered
to tho defendant Salisbury two notes
for the sum Of $4,000 each, due
November llth, 1891, aud NJ security
delivered over the Beck notes AuI
stock, that each VI these notes rX.
pressed upon H. face that the collateral
security was deposited with defendant
Salisbury, with authority 10 sell at
public OF private sale, AZ bic option,
and without notice or demand, on de.
fault In tue payment uf plaintiff
notrf; that any surplus arising from
such sale should be returned 90 plain,
THIS, but that plaintiffs neglected o.
pay their notes at mAtuTity-N0vrm-
Dor llth, 1891, that on November 10Th
the defendant Salisbury served notice
upon plaintiffs anu thu various banks
amt nnAnCinl institutions Of Salt Lake
GUY that he would soil tho securities
on November llth vi public sale, and
that ut such sale tho Defendant BAN
berger WAS the purchaser for ~, 600, the
purchase being made Jointly Tor him-
self and the defendant Salisbury; that
tho amount due defendants on
PLAINTIFF notes was gs,7is; that there.
upon the balance Of Tho purchase
price, with PLAINTIFF notes, was tend.
cred TO thum anu acceptance refused;
that the sale was fairly made aud
the price received tho full cash
value VI tho securities; aud
that thereby they became tue owuurs
thereof uuu were resdy AMI willing 90
deliver 10 plaintiff the balance Of the
purchase price anu their noles.
The Case was tried before referee
Judge n. }. AnIerson) who touad, o.
noonulusinu OF law from the facts uI-
duued, that the plaintiffs, after tho tuI-
der and demand Tor the notvs, were
the owners OF the collateral notes aud
stock, subject 90 the lien In favor 10
tue defendants, Tor tho sum a. i,i14s,
anu were entitled 10 the possession OF
said noles; that the defendants, by the
wrongful refusal u comply with the
PLAINTIFF demand Tor their possession,
unlawiully converted the same 90 their
own use; aud that the measure OF plaiu-
tln's damage WAS the value Of tho
property converted 50 900, less Ss,7la
lien thereon, OF sg5g, fur which sum Uu
rendered judgment in favor VI plalu.
utls. Defendants having tcndered the
plaintiffs the balance thus due before
trial, and they having refused 10, hc
gave judgment iu their favor Tor their
o0.ts.
Inc PLAINTIFF moved the district
court 10 sut aside the findings pi ihv
referees AMI grant anew trinL hul the
motion wac 0vGTfuled by Judge zane
(tue then chief lustiucl ami they al 70
prnled 10 the higher court,
The Supreme court, iu atntlng 10.
opinion 90 which was delivered 10y
Judge BnTtch, Jul es smith an.
Miner ooucurrng held that the
referee could not lawfully DE.
due. the amount Of the debt from the
amount OF the damages, especially
"A neu M guph demand WHH made lu