Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1898-11-11
TWO MORN DECISIONS
Supreme Court kHims One Case and ne
verses he 0hef.
BOTH WE'RE sJrs FOR DAMAGES


The supreme court delivered two
opinions today. an affirmation ana "
reversal.
The case affirmed was william w
Croco w the oregon short Limo l'ail-
road company. appellant. ana the ono
reversed. Julius Mlllef W the bullion-
Beck and Champion MInng company
appellants.
Action In the fret named case was
brought By pmInun 60 recover nom
the railroad company the sum ot w.
aco Tor Injuries received 90 his person
on the Ord of Arr.l 1881. at Malad
dnho. Croc1 was q passenger
ON the train when WHH n'Ihllyd' re
ALLEGED onrplrrsuusa Uu the part ui tho
defendant company in mhiul"lllnE az
Inadequate switch. side track anu foAn
bed and running iia trains 90 dan
.Ureus ratD IN sperd The case was
uiod before Judge H1lupp ana jury IN
the Second district court. ogden, the
liry returned verdict iOt the plaintlH
Tor 5000. The defendant ihtn hp-
ucnisd from the judgment and an order
overriding lts motion iIr q now uihL
n was commended that ne damages
wore excessive and m1rif0'.y wrong;
that the complaining wEucss was per-
mlttCd 90 ttHtlfy VII 70 hla mpu'fy
was poorer than before ihe accident
and shia his tfailm ay was nor c9n-
fined tl the allegations ~ th' COM
plIint. ifat the court erred IN REFUSING
90 lnn.rucl che jury ga requested BY
c0uuael Tor defendant 90 the oreei tha'
the phintin had entered iuu an agree
ment wish the attorney whereby h.
agreed i1 pay him forty per orrt OF
whu b. migfc recover.
The court finds thai "thc umuufr u
damages u a faci tn ho found by tn
Jury. and " there be- Auy evidence Go
fupf ift ~ verdict. fhe court Or not at
liberty under the Constellation ~ this
Suto. o. sri 20 aside"
The opurr further nris that che tes-
um1ny M plaintiff WIS oompc,cp. I'M
der the claim ~ counsel and also under
The complaint, Med
A. 90 the agreement entered into be.
tween pitlf'ln AMI biz attorney she
court nrif that under iha gfIviH nH 20
section les1 Compiled Laws 20 Tiah.
20 was competent fOr attorney ard
client g. agree that Che attorneys
computation should he contingent IN.
on succoas ana payable By percentage
or otherwise uut of the proceeds " thu
litigation. 10 WIS noe competent Tor
tho attorney Co., c'rslierlii1n thereof.
q agrte 60 pay the f,es and suk fhtrr-
after o. Do commenced, 1ut unc who
wa rat 70 parry Oh such contract has
~ rlrhi so question o. vilidky."
The court n ~ the OPINION thar Judge
kuApp properly refused 10 give the
llf,ruci'una requested hy counsel flr
the pllntin company and nriInr no
rsverrlblc error IN the record. anirmn
she lower courts judgment.
The attorney In the ease were David
Evans Tor The plalndn and T.. l.. Nn.
Hams Tor the defendant A great deal
81 W feeling seems 60 have existed ON
both sides.
In hi brief Mr. Williams says,
could there De- a stronger Illustration
~ The vlclDuHncm that attends the en-
giEing In the prosecution Of suits upon
such contracts ~ exists hero between
the plalnlln ana hlH cDunsai7"
Replying TO this Mr. Evans said: "Na
one knows better than counsel for an.
pellant that the contract. about which
h. has done sn much pfailng. has NO
place whatever In tho ease az bar. Ills
abusive. NliupHratlyu, unjust and scan.
dnious language characterize that ~ a
demarogue and "a pottlfoggor. rather
than that Of a lawyer"
No reference. however. 90 the ian-