Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1897-03-04
THE TRIAL PROCEEDS
10 Tho Bowman Case, Defense Draws
First Blood.
HAD TO ELECT A CAUSE OF ACTION.
Courts Decision Unlock d For-Judgc
King Maks the Opening state.
ment-Court News.

First blood was drawn by the defense
in the Bowman case thiE morning by
Judge Cherry deciding that the plain
TIL would have to elect which enc OF
the two counts they would go. 10 trial
an. The decision was evidently ~.
expected by counsel for tue plaintiff,
as It took them some little time to
decide which one OF the counts they
wouli prefer to proceeI on. Judge
King Immediately took exceptions to
the ruling Of the court, aad later on
announced that they would go to
trial on the Hrst cause, which is the
written contract for the erection Of the
city and county building made between
Bowman ami the city and county
uflluers.
The motion that plaintiff be re-
qulred TO elect cause Of RctiOR, was
made by Attorney Varian, after tue
empnnoiling OF the jury, last evening.
The amended compliant az q stcond
cause sues on quantum meTui -
Reasonable value ,Or the maternal
iuTni hed--the amount named is the
saIuo us To the first cause.
Shortly Rf,er eleven O'Clock Judge
King made an opening ,tAtement to
the jury covering all the principal
POINTS in the case aud showing wHRt
plaintiff expected TO prove. he was
followed by Judge Baskin Tor the do.
Tense, after VIII CO court adj turned TIL
. O'citck, me names OF the iutors
trying tue suit art; A. i. Sullivan,
Thomas Il. Grliliths, William Blu tie,
joseph rhOrup, George IL. Cllu, john
L. AxtOn, Jonn Il. Cummock and
Thomas II. Woodbury..
La the case OF &c rye Ii. Grisc I'M
ct oil va Penney lvulia SINE ng &C.,
petition asking that Improvements be
m sde at cost OF s., 800, granite.
Another sirprlsa was sprung th.s
afternoon, when the plaintiff son.
Gu led he would not stand upon his
nrst count ami c.uld not fail back
upon the secDnd ioT the reason that
the court in his ruling tuis N ,rniug
bad iutimpteI that the secOud count
could not oe considaGed. Another
| amendment was being argued wuen
the NEWS report close1.
Following is the amendment:
That In pursuance Of the Employ.
ment pr viued Tor iii said ntraoi TIE
plaintiff Offered upon the perform lncg
u saiu contract with large iOioa Vi
labUrers, sut.cOntractors and employee,
and large bmouSt OF material wnicI.
he used Ia AMI towards the erection
Of said building anu expended lst.,
amount Of money anu proceeded " Il
the erection anu construct q,
II said building unit uats.
t he ION day oil August, 1893. ,hr
upon ss day he was disuus.rG .h
| discharged from further emp'oy a., O..
and labor on said building s"u -
missed aud driven AMI Turned 80
| lie said pre- mises, anu bic NO,k .4
| wOrkmen and sub.cOntrao.urs were
stopped from the further prusGcuiila o.
| their labOrs IL the construction az ,n.
building. That upon the llth AugLs ,
1888, plaiHtltf baI furnished RLJ . o.,
ia the construction OF the hRiI ru4.,.
ing labor ana material which VS., N
Og used and was Jha joint prOptIt5 %
said defendants and for the san ,v
fenda Is Jointly to the amount %
1884 .OSl, wHich said labor anu ma le e
iui 80 furnished ami used to the 81.
defendants was OIL the reAlonab!s viIuu
OF the sum VI S2S4,03l.