Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1898-11-09
THREE CASES REVERSED
hecAHTY, HIGGINS AND DUsESBtRRY


counties-Court Notes.
The Supreme Court reversed two
cages today The nrst OF which was
Lorenzo Lislnbec. appellant. against
she Monroe and south Bend Irrigation
companies ana IN the case ~ the Victor
Gold ana Silver Mining company W the
National Bank OF the Republic ct al.
respondents. and Brown & Henderson.
and the Victor Gold and Silver Mlp.
inE company. appellants.
Action IN she nrst named case was
brought by Llsonbee In June. 1897, In
Che district cour, of s,Aier TO restrain
defendants from flooding plhiinnr's land
and so recover t551 AZ damages Tor
flooding piainuaa land during the
years 1895. 1896 and 1897.
The case was tried before a Jury
which found that Ln'nbco had sus-
,alncd no damage and Judge Mccarly
denied him lnjunc,ive relief From the
verdict Of the jury ana tho Judgment
90 She court, after motion Tor q new
trial had boon oyerulod, plaintiff app
poaicd.
The court nnds that the defendants
ala NOT use Judgment in the constitute
uon and repair ~ their surplus
dfch and that damage g. Plaintiffs
land was caused by the How OF the
watcr. though 20 what extent was a
difiicuN question 90 solve.
one error cited was Judge McClrly
requiring plalnan Co have his witnesses
sworn and pW On the stand, hlH atior-
ncY having offered 81 prove certain
facts, DO that the admission OF uuca-
Cons and answers might be ruled upon,
Tho court holds thlt Judge McCuriy
was right M the position ilken
Plaluln also took exceptions to the
remarks OF Judge McCariy. made dur
Ing the progress " she trill, which was
assigned as preiulic.li error. The eiuri
holes that % id nos prejudice plain
tins case with the jury. and adds:
THE court has the r'ght 90 maln'
,atn ita dlguity ana rcpfoVr or rohuke
/ counsel Cor language and conduct
/ tending 30 bring 70 into contempt Of ~
q proper ease, % ruuiah hy me, and,
| IN some eases. Imprisonment C0unHel
I should De respectful. arl tho court
should preside with dignity and pro.
prIcfy. Counsel also has lights Th eh
I the court should at an TIMES respect
/ Numerous other trrurl were assigned
/ which the court considered but were
| not deemed of sufficient Importance Tor
I a special examination. A reversal D.
I accordingly ordered with directions 60
Judge McCarty io grant a new trial.
The opinion is written ~ chief jus
ilcc Zane justices bar,ch ana Miner
| concur
QUESTION OF AN ATTORNEYS
FEE.
The question involved In tho other
case was hu attorneys lien on IL julg.
] men. Tor ruHts. the court holding ihui
the lien extended only 90 the fees and
] disbursements % the attorney on acc
count % ihs taxable costs.
THIS cause. ihs Victor Gold and silver
Mining company W tho National Hank
] 81 the licpuhllch, was originally tried
before Judge William H. King Ia Provo
December 1896.
on appealing the case m, minlnr
company was unable 90 furnish tn
amount necessary Co perfect the ap'
peal. l,s attorneys. Brown Hcnirr.
son. however, camp o. the rescue nnd
advanced thf required amount
Tho case was reversed by the appel,
late court and decree entered award
lluE costs 90 the plaintin company, Th'
Uur.H were taxed az g3t1ss. but thl
clerk refused 20 issue cN 'cutlln, claim
lus that the costa had been onse
against two other Judgment, which
. NNA N|NN ANNNHNN'A NhNNNN"H HNl' NNNNNNiNNN
company counsel Tor the defendant
bank moved that me court enter q sat
lHflrtI1u of the Judgment flr costs. Hl
taxed, ln accordance with the supreme
court accession. iifown a lleudersli
resisted the motion, presenting auda
Wis showing thUy had advanced th'
money and contendlnE ihlt they wru
entitled 600 a lien on The Judgment.
Judge Higgins hold that the attorney
had mo- rlrht whatever ln tho cost
paid hY themselves and made hn urdf
] uuHrttinr tho costs araluHi the iudF
mrnts From that judgment THROWN 4
henderson ANA the mining cnmplnl
appealed.
The court nnda that the attorney
I were entitled 10 be reimbursed Tor th
expenses Incurred and that they hnl
e. lien On the judgment paramount q
an other claims.
Upon tho question whether or not nj
} attorney IN entitled 10 lien upon
/ Judgment obtained By him for. his yer
{ Vices IN obtaining Il, the court refrain
Z from giving an opinion, but adds tina
the authorities, especially IN THIS cIun
ny. on the question OF nn attorney
: lien az common law on Judgment az
not harmonious.
! m. court then orders reversal Wit
! directions to tho lower court 90 au
3 aside its order ana decree In the prem
laps.
The opinion was delivered by Iustle
nuItCh and CuuCurrcd in by chief Jun
. liee Zane and Justice Miner.