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

mont Of the bank ION. bs.ors Its
collapse.
RAILROAD COMPANY AND CLERK.
Tho oaeo oil William A. Cooper,
plnllth and respondent, We the ben.
yer d ltiJ d'abdu RWrIai Co., dc.
irnlauls anu appellant, came up on
appeal ffom Judge B,rtoh's division 0l
Tue Ihiil aIUic. court
Bennett, Matsuai s. Bradley and
Attorney L.. ID. r. rnomyun were
o!uHssl i1t the appellant Attorney
Ffans Pierce Tor the respondent.
sui was brought lu recover the sum
oil 500, which plainuu claimed WA.
eue 10 him Tor services us clerk uuu
o00Akoeput during Tue month. Oi Jauu.
afy anu February, 1881; uut the De.
leu4auts duuivu tnir, answering tho.
piainuh worked Tor them during Jauu.
"ty %. iu't yUsras cashier i their cx.
press office iu this cay, auI thst Tor
tnls ne received $50 Doe tuii abstraction.
Tue Jury on tftl OF mo cause fJuuI
Tor thr .lAiuuH, assessing bile DAMAGE
at tl95iJ. Motion f1r Lew tuaL
based 1u several grounds, Was over.
fulei, aud from tlls 0gdur aud She
alignment the do'oIlants appealed.
JusucEs JumsmcrioS.
The third and Ias. cass ON the day,s
l.si wac tuat N the McCornick Matv.
csIug Machine Co., plniuun aud
respondent, W. John a. Marchnnt and
George Wariell, defendants aud aI-
ptilauF.
Attorneys W. +. Snyder AMI Barlow
Ferguson Tor tn appellants. Attorney
y. Is. CrilrhlJw Appeared ior thr &C..
sp0nIuuts.
This was an action on two promil.
sorry nuiua commenced iu tho Iuatiuuis
court VI the Fun precinct, this city,
some sevou years ago, against tue lr.
PENDANTS, who reside iuSummit county.
/; was tfiud be- lsV2 before Justice
Gee, who rendered Judgment wr
| SiiI-7. The dofundanls appealed 90
| thu Third district court the result
| being "a Judgment Tor $3.50 800 aud costa.
Motion was mndo Tor "a nov THAI anu
ovetfulul by Cnicl Justice Merritt,
from whose Hrdcf thereon the present
appeal ia tAkou.
rhrrc pliuta were now raised, the
main uhu being that the Jualiuuis
court rendered judgment 10 excess ID I
/ w. Jurisdiction, and that therefore The
/ district court wAo without Jurisdiction
over tue subject matter VI tho action.
The fespunIenps counsel showed
| that when tho complaint was lluu with
| the Justice the foil amount claimed as
/ principal, Interest ANA attorneys icer,
a. provided by tue n0trs sued upon,
wac s-1s.05, anu That At the time OF the
trial II was only by reason OF the
| interest acciulug after the iiliuR Of the
| complaint that the claim exceeded
| $500. Hence, they cay, IA dctofmiu.
| ing tho iuriudlCtilnRl amount, Interest
uccruiug after the ding could not he
| considered.
Each oithe foregoing cases was sub.
mittoi after argument
DEBIROYED ~ A FIRE.
The last case argued yesterday after.
noon was that OF William Bailey,
/ appellant, VI sidney Stevens ct al, Mr..
/ Bailey sued the defendants In the
/ Fourth district court Al Ogden on Feu.
| ruaty 20, 1891, aud two months later
! judgment was entered In favor " the
| defendants on their Cr0ss,C0mplaint.
/ A motion Tor now triHl inside by the
| pniuuu having been uyeffulod, Gu
| appeal was taken 10 the Supreme court
On March "a, 1873, after the appeal
had been ptupatud, thu court huuhe al
Ogden was destroyed by nfe; the rec
ORD, which was IA the possession o
| appellants council, was bufuVd, and
the appeal was dismissed without pro-
| ludiec. Plaiutifi then filed sec0nt
action, setting az these facts anu pray
| ing for new trial. a demurrer q
tho complaint WIS sustained ON the
| ground that It dit not contain iaCtl
sufficient 30 constitute O. cause VI action
anu a. tho plaintiff did not amend Do
the required time, the suit wa dis
missed. Plaintiff then appeals iron
tue order OF dismissal.