Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1895-01-17

"AAAN NNNN'. IN.H.NNrH " AHNAANNN We
bfough. the m1u0n 10 reiuslatu was
.antoi, conditioned upon paymvn! VI
20 to the respondents.
ANOTHER COMES ~.
90 motion of Judge powers. Charle,
a. Hart, ot Logan, mBmbur VI the
bar OF the supreme court OF the slate ut
Michigan, was admitted To practice DO
this courL
CHARLES lmEDE
District Attorney Judd inquired
whether ihoir houom had yet nzud
upon datU Tor the hearing OF the
appeal " Charles rhluic, WHO ia under
aun,vucs o. death Tor vito murder al
Murray.
Chloi Justice Merritt answered in
tho negative; whcrour0n Assistant
District Attorney Huwat said that u
nsrs able TO the court the matter might
be taken up Vt an adjourned session,
siy some tlmu la MArCn. Ho aid uyt
suppose that tue doiundant was anxious
% "spUud the tErcutluuDl."
"Wnat authority have you Tor MAX.
Ing that sta,umun,2' asked Judge
Cuurry (rhiudC's c9unscll with some
show Of warmth.
Judge Howat rej0Inod, with faint
emile. thai u hb himself were under
HuntuuCe ns was ThiuIe, he knew hu
would mot DO iu any hurry. 40 was
not natural 20 suppIto that ho would
UH.
Judge Cherry urgei thu same argu-
mont he put forth ycslotday-thatt the
iuinfval between now anu January
Blst would not bo sufficient time in
which Tor him 90 prepare his brief and
give the other side notice n case tht
Trial Of which occupied nearly eleven
days. Counsel also stated that ono OF
tue points la the assignments OF error
was new one 10 him aud required
sime consideration.
The court undertook 10 TX the date
t0r hearing toe appeal tomorrow.
HAuEAs CORPUS.
Attorney ID. ID. Hou,z presented n
petition tor writ OF haDeas corpus on
buhall u Clayton GAnnett and Alex
,ldef Ogiivic now undergoing n sen.
once OF Two years In tue penitentiary
f0r grand lutCuny, passed upon them
IS Judge 5mith la the Fret district
court, vt Provo, on March ., 1894. The
application was based upon the
grounds, ffst, that the Indictment
chAtgei no Oiienso known 10 the law OF
this Territory, ana second, that the
same charged no odensv greater than
petit larceny.
The defendants were accused "
stealing ton head 0i cattle belonging
10 one flank Bush.
The court granted tho writ, AMI IL
was made foiurnnble on January 2lsI.
PARK oIIY hank FAILURE.
The diet case argued was tina, Of
Thomas Cupit, plaiutin ani appellant,
Va the Park CITY bank, defendant aud
respondent.
w. /. Snyder and Judge Powers
appeared for tie former; Brown aud
Henderson iof tue latter.
Appeal from lhirI district court
Judge bnflgh,
Tue action came hero on appeal from
ul order OF tho lower court dischuTg-
ing an attachment. The writ was
Issued upon an affidavit which set
forth "that tho defendant had disposed
VI Ms property with intent 10 defraud
Ne oeditorr," aud ~ a further ground,
"lhat the defendant iraudulcnuy took
plaintiffs q, 900 on the Ith VI June,
NHNhf hhNNA lux ~ VIZ NNNh - " az AANNNr
vent: that the defendant ifauIuloHtly
took the said NJ. :. Ascheim Mercau-
til1 Cos sS78lU knowing we'll that II
was inrolvunt." rhis later claim was
assigned TO the plaintiff, together with
ola other o,usos Of action, forming tho
tuujuct matter OF this SUIT, aggrJgAtlng
ueauySB, 900. GA the part uf the ap.
prllant Il was pointci out that wbllo
tho defendant gave notice OF motion 90
daohArgo tno attachment, no grounds
or reasons were specified us 10 why
the mOliUn was made. The AFFIDAVIT
iloI Ia suppoO OF thu motion only at
tempted to negative tue hrst ground
'1r Issuing tho writ aud DID not az.
Tempt 10 dispute the other, The notice,
therefore, WIS insufficient, the statute
providing that the defendant might
move 10 discharge Jg dissolve The wit
upon the ground that it Was Improperly
Ur iTfegulhFly Issued. Tho notice, rali
appellants counsel, muHt NOT only ba
made upon this gtUunI, bat specify the
Particular grounds " iTryguauiy, OF
why tho writ was improperly Issued.
The rOspOndunps counsel insiancci
that no objection was raised 20 tue
tutii0ienCy Of the notice on hraTin g
tho motion before Judge Bhr'ch. %
lection wae taisol 40 10 tue aulnclhucy
Ui the affidavit anu Il was ovcrfuludi
because 20 far as any ground Of attach
mbut was concerned 10 was specifically
denied. The court below nenti the
case on its merlh--lo determine
whether tho defendant had as
signed ils property with Intent
10 delraud It's creditors. Tho Park
City bunE, said counsel, had been
IN existence for uunUur ui yaar''
lia maaager Mr. A. Il, k.uhatdt1u,
had Inadvertently or Improperly,
loaned money 10 certain pvTsonsi
Including J. NJ. Rlchardson. Hgl
eventually the general hardness Of lhl
times prevented the carrying on VI tue
business, Manager Rioharlaon made
assigumeut Tor tho benefit u laly
90 All ita cfedil1rg-Wltuuut any
references anu this WAS ratified Ny tht
board Of directors. 10 was insisieu thai
There was not the slightest hins VI any
not VI fraud Or wrong doing on lht
laft Of any officer u tue banE, ana
That none Of them gained anything 10y
Inc Assignment. Hence counsel hskoi
o. IA ali la