Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1897-03-25
The BOWMAN CASE
Now In Tho Hands Of tho Eight
Jurymen.
JUDGE CHERRY's CHARGE IN FULL
lk1 Cour. Reviews tlis Whclc
Case--The Jury still
Out.

last night aud this morning Judge
Cherry charged the jury, occupying
upwards of three .quaricrs OF an hour,
after which the jurors were placed In
charge OF Bailin Gulbransen.
The hearing OF the a Q began on the
3rd day OF March. Bowman sues 10
recover from the city and county OF
Salt Lake the sum Of $40, 900 alleged to
ba due on labor and material alleged
by him to have been furnished aud
used in the construction OF the city
and county building prior TO the 11th
of august, 1893, when he ssys he was
discharged from further employment
under his contract. The court In
charging the jury said:
"under tue pieadings and contract,
on the part OF the plaintiff he would
be entitled to recover any D,lance uue
| as shown by the evidence between the
value OF tho labor and materials
| furnished by the plaintiff and tho
amount paid by defendants. In de.
| termining the value OF the labor and
materials furnished by plaintiff up to
the time OF his discharge. You should
| take the estimates OF the architects as
| shown by the certificates made at the
time, which estimates were accepted
| by the plaintiff; this mode OF fixing
| the value of the labor and materials az
| the work progressed, having been
| mutually accepted and agreed TO by
| the parties as shown by tho written
| contract between the city aud county
\ OF the first part and J. M. Bowman or
| the second part, laid contract being
| part OF the complaint in this case.
| According to the contract between
the parties but 90 per cent OF the value
| OF the labor anu m aterisls was to be
| paid to the plaintiff as the work pre-
| crossed; the balance, being 10 per cent,
| to become due on the com letion OF
| the building. You are Instructed that
| from the evidence you should asoer-
| tain how much II any was retaiuet
by the city aud county rs the eaid 10
| per cent OF the estimates, anu this
amount should be considered in your
| estimate OF Whatever sum you may
find to be due the plaintiff on the con.
tract herein mentio cd.
| ,In ascertaining how much ia due
on tne 10 per cent held back by the
defendants, II you dbd there was any
4
duct therelrom euch sum as the evi.
dence appears to have been paid In
excess OF the value OF the MATERIAL
n ~ d labor at the time the defendant
mnde payment OF the last estimste
made Ia behalf of the plaintiff,
viz, In the fore part OF August, 1898
"As to any extra labor or material
claimed 10 be furnished by the plain
tiff In the construction Of the building,
the Jury are instructed that such ex-
tras are included in the estimates anu
certificates of the architect anu are
conclusive of the AmJunt and value
thereof, and 1t will BIS your duty NOT to
| consider the same, except as bearing
on the auction of whether or not the
plaintiff WAS delayed thereby In tue
completion Of the building at the time
agreed upon. II you should find from
the evidence that the extra labor and
materials required OF tue plaintiff to be-
furnished contributed TO delay the
completion OF the building, then |
| instruct you that as matter OF law and
by the terms OF the contract the plain
tiff wonld be entitled to an equal ex.
tension OF time in which TO com plete
the building beyond the Tins named
IN the contract, namely October !,
1898.
"Ir you fiud from the evidence
that tue proposition to change the
building 80 as to be made hre.p proof,
had the effect to delay the work and
prevent the plaintiff from proceeding
with the work thereon, then instruct
| you that the fault OF such 1eisy could
not be that OF the plaintiff, and the
| time OF such delay should 10 added to
the Tins namei for the completion OF
| the building, Wiz, to October l, 1898,
| provided, you believe from the evi.
dencs that the proposition TO nre.ptOot
the building, and the delay incident
| thereto, II any, was CAUSED by the de.
] fendants or either OF them. You are
| also instructed that the body OF men,
known es the joint committee, together
with the arch iteUts, Monheim, Bird &
| Prowd DOT, were tho duly su,hOrlz sd
agents for the defendants and their
act or acts would biDd each OF the de.
| fendauts in regard 10 the extra labor
or materials ordered or required by
said committee or said architects.
at you should fad from the evi.
dence mat there was a greater amount
| OF. disbursements from what was known
as the Mayors contingent fund, than
! there WAS estimates OF tho work as
l W t'A'h-
cates for the period OF lime covered by
said disbuIse ments, then IL would be
| your duty u doIuc; tho difference
| from any amount yUu might hnd to be
| due plaintiff. l. On the other hand
| you find from the evidence that
| greater amouat Wac included In the
| estimates than In the disbursements
| Tor the period before named, then you
should tiud such difference In favor OF
the plaiutfl; provIueu, you hnd that
any tuch difference has not already
been paid by defendants on bills OF
orders OF plaintiff or to plaintiff him
self, or to any u his sub.ooniractors
| for labor or material furnished prior to
| plaintiffs discharge,
| "On the question OF whether or not
the plaintiff was wGongluliy discharged
In the lore part VI August, 1898, l
| Instruct you, this question becomes
material only In the consideration OF
| whether or not the deiendants should
recover on thoir counter.claim against
the plaintiff. II you believe from the
evidences that at the time OF the plain.
tifi's discharge he had tho proper Huf-
ficiet cy of skilled wotkmen on the
building and buiiic,snt INA IerIAls OF the
proper quality, anu was prosecuting
the work with prompiness anu dili-
genee on his part, And had not failed