Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1905-04-11
SUPREME COURT OPINIONS.


Three opinions We're handed down by
the supreme court this afternoon and
In each case the Judgment Of the lower
court was affirmed. In two OF the
cases dissenting opinions were written
by Justice Straup, Chief Justice Bartch
wrote two Of the opinions and Justice
Straup wrote the other.
I'm the case Of the oregon Short Line
Railroad company against w. h, Jones,
Jr, ct al, appellants, three condemna-
ton suits Joined In one for the pur-
poses Of this appeal, the supreme court
holds that under the statutes of this
state interest cannot be allowed In con-
demnation suits as part compensa-
ton for damages to the owners Of the
land condemned, The order OF con-
domination was made by the lowe, court
In favor of the company, and the
amount Of the damages by reason OF
such condemnation was assessed In ia
vor Of defendants by a jury. Defend
ants requested the court to instruct the
jury to award them judgment for In
terest on the amount OF damages from
March 10, 1903, the date on which the
summons was served on them. The
court refused TO give such instruction,
and an appeal was taken by defendants
on that ground.
Justice Straup, I'm the opinion Of the
court, holds that the statutes provide
that the jury shall award as damages
the actual value of the land taken at
the date Of the service Of summons, and
nothing more nor less, hence It ex-
cludes any claim Of interest. The judy
ment Is therefore affirmed.
In the case Of Mohr Touse against
the Consolidated Railway q Power
company, appellant, Chief Justice
Bartch IN the opinion Of the court holds
that "errors dependent upon the evi-
dence for determination In jury cases
| cannot be considered on appeal unless
| the same were presented to and passed
upon by the trial court on motion for
| new trial"
In this case plaintiff sued to recover
| damages for personal injuries,
At the conclusion OF the evil
| dence, defendant moved the
court to instruct the jury to return a
verdict In It's favor of no cause OF ao-
! ton The motion was denied and a
| verdict for $500 was rendered in favor
| OF plaintiff. The case was appealed by
the defendant without first making a
motion for new trial and giving the
| trial court an opportunity TO pass on
| the matter Of errors alleged to have
| been committed in its instructions,
The defendant now attempts to have
! the supreme court review the evidence
In the case and decide whether or not
the court erred In refusing to give tho
instruction asked. This, It holds can
! not be done unless a motion for a new
trial based upon the error complained
| of has been made and overruled thus
bringing the evidence on that point
! properly before the appellate court. The
| Judgment is affirmed, Justice straup
| dissenting.
The judgment Of the lower court IL
also affirmed In the case Of the Bon
| ANA Consolidated Mining company ct
| al, appellants, VS. the Golden Head MINI
! ing company The action was brought
to quiet title to four mining claims.
The lower court found In favor Of de-
fendnnt as 10 two Of the claims and
1 found that neither parties were entitled
| to the others, This judgment Ia affirm
| cd In an opinion written by Chief Jus
! tlce Bartch and concurred In by Justice
! MoCarty. Justice Straup also dlssents
| In this case.