Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1895-01-22

mas icon conveyed t0 third parties bY
ulih thJmuu anu George tolr. Ihs
leaves tine a. sii0u OF utlu OF lot only
10 DO determined ON this appeal.
uE CITY AS ArprLlASrs.
La the cuse % Euwail q. sc3vlle.
rrsplndeut W. salt Lake CIV. apppl.
iauu, the i0rUur was represented Uy
jug iuWcrs Huu AtturLuys HtrauU
ana MoNaily; tho latter rs Cty At-
1Orucy HOge.
suit was originally brought in the
Ihnd district court 10 recover ss .OuI
damages iUr tu injury TO ulalutiu's
lo'munths' old ChiIu, alleged 20 have
ueen caused through the negligence %
the defendants.
On January Z, 1892, about D O'Clock
10 thu afternoon, Ais. 5clvIllo WIS
walking aYng the icl-coversd pave.
ment on tue ualt clue OF Main street,
carrying thucuiiJ in norurms, when she
clipped aud itlI, Tho ntua one wa
brown with considerable force % Ga,
gtuuni, ttuHus ne back, and thereby
receiving ON luguluul rupture. Toe
gist Of the uciiuu lay Iu the ucgligcucu
on Otherwise oil tue CHy lu permitting
Ice auu snow b. accumulate on tue
! sidewalk,
The Jury on tho TRIAL % the cause
inuni iUr tao plaintiff Boa She sum OF
500 sui catis, THE latter taxed ut .75. o..
Appellant motion Tor % new tuni
wns denied by Juagc Blu5u, before
Wupm tho case Was tflUd, anu hence
inc present appeal,
Among tuu errors assigned are iu.
suhig.gHcy Of evidence o. sustain tue
verdict AMI error GA ,hg part OF the
court in permitting i.s charge 20 b.
sent 10 the jury room alter delivery.
pANAOu BY suEar.
Alfred @. BHm, r.s4 supervisor Of
district No. ., SUNNI %, plaintiff
aud appellant, va Thomas W. Jones,
defendant aul rgslIlduu.
Nillitms, Van Colt ami Sutherland
llf TIE q. poiIAuii Richards Is Richards
/ Tor the respondent.
Tho only question involved iu this
casl-Wniyh comes here ON appeal
rom Judge MeiutpH division Of the
luirl uIsttlrt rIutl-.u The CDusutu-
u1nulity 90 Section 2.O,7 OF tho Com.
/ piled Laws 0i Utah, 1855.
Appellant, FEEL road supervisor, tcEau
an action be- ore % Justice Of tue peace
I damage ,lll) done by bis driving n
] hucl, Ui sheep over the public hilhway
/ Ia Echo canyon, on May bth, isUa, Do
being claimed that saiu sheep dualr0yel
| .he banks by rolling rocks upon tuch
| highway 10 they Travelled over DO. The
/ respondent urmufged nuu answered,
but appellant obtained Judgment
/ RuBp0uluut then appealed ~ TOE dis
/ triCt court, whtte his demurrer WIS
/ sustained, Appellant declined %
/ umunI, lual Judgment was entered
AMI un appeal taEUu.
Respondents counsel claim that
| section -u51 above referred 20 is void,
/ because % UDntnveuuB thu F0uTtucu ca
amendment TO the Constitution VI the
United States.
JuDJE uAEICu SUSTAINED.
An opinion boa tue case OF the People
va Roy Wright, appellant, argued a
lew days ago, uan also bven handed
down.
The dscislou Of the lower court
| Judge BuuCh) was affirmed. The
| opinion was by Judge Smith aud con-
CURED Ia by Judges Merritt snu King,
Wright was convicted Of stealing d
Union bicy Gle, valued NJ $40, the prop,
crty OF David Il. Edwards, anu SON
fenced 20 eighteen muuthn impris0u,
mUnt % the puuiteutinTy. The
defendant apI oalUd, claiming that lht
Judge uTroi la giving the charge TO tNt
Jury, especially la that part which
iusIfuuis the jury that "the exact timt
when this Ohuuse was committed u
not material, u It was committed al
any timu within four years u the
time when the defendant was iu-
dioled," Evidence was introduced at
The trial by tho defendant 10 show hli
Whereabouts On the night the bicycle
was stolen, l9T tho purpCEu Of IrJvinr
au ulibi, auu that ueiug at IL unnc,
whom the thritWhs uommi ttd he could
not have bJon the guilty party, Ih,
exception 90 the charge WAS taken fUr
thc reason that 10 was ia elect Hn Iu'
suuCtiOn 10 disregard tho evidence
luuulll1lonCy of evidence 10 justify the
verdict was albO fol up.