The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-07-19
JUDGE HOWELL
CROWS POETIC
Love and Business Conflict in
Action Decided in Dis
trict Court.
WOMAN IN THE CASE
is WINNER OF ACTION
John D. Peterson Must Divide
Profits With Mrs. Nellie
B. Stuart.
Special TO The Tribune.

Special TO The Tribune.
OGDEN, July 1S.-The royalties from
a patented pump-gun, patent love af
fair, and promises which passed between
the two lovers. now hostile parties to a
legal action. furnished the woof and warp
of a lengthy decision rendered this after
noon by District Judge ], A. Howell in
the case OF Nellie Bennett Stuart against
John Douglas Peterson.
The action was brought by Mrs. Stuart
to require the defendant to make an ac-
counting OF all royalties received by him
from the Remington Arms company on a
patented shotgun sold to the company
for $4,000 cash and So cents royalty on
every gun manufactured. Mrs. Stuart
claims an interest In the uatent through
her former husband, A l.. Bennett. who
was associated with Peterson in the pat
enting OF the gun, but who died
before the patents were completed. Later.
when the models Of the gun had been ap-
proved. Peterson sought to sell IL 10 the
Pennington Arms company, who required
the signature of Mrs. stuart pefore tne
purchase was made.
This was obtained upon the promise OF
Peterson to pay Mrs. Stuart. then MIS-.
Bennett, one-fourth OF the profits derived
from the patent. In part this CONTRACT
has been complied with, as Peterson has
paid over $500 but has since refused to
paw the widow OF his former partner In
the patent!ng OF the gun any OF the royal
ties received from the manufacturers
Promises of Lover,
The defendants counsel at the trial OF
the case argued that the eXtravagant
promises OF lover 10 his sweetheart TO
pay her one-fourth OF the revenue oe-
rived from the gun patent, should not II,
any sense be regarded in the same light
as business agreement. Commenting
upon this Judge Howell In his decision
says in part: Occasionally. however, un-
willingly. the courts are nevertheies:
compelled to draw the line between whal
is simply loves fantasy, and cold, marc
business, between people IN love. ans
fortunately the task is not dinlcuit, ne
cause in the crucioie or common seHse ~,
IL is easy TO separate them. II. FOR IN
stance the love sick youth. during q
spasm OF delirium. promises the equalls
love-sick maiden that he VIII give ne
lish her lily white throat, or the iady .,l Iall
in a moment OF ecstasy swears she WI
pluck from the sky shining diamond U
bedazzle her lovers manly hand or sniI ,
bosom, court OF equity would not seer
10 enforce either promise, nor "ouia
court OF law give damages for the failure
to perform either.
Just Little Different.
But if a lover, or beloved. happen Q
own some porperty or other Faiuao Oh
right and the otheT pFoiitloeS " 80,
sum Of money in exchange for It, tnei
that promise can be enforced IN Cour
NJ instIce In the absence OF fraud o
duress (Which love. in and of itself can
not be legally considered). and II matter
not that in making the bargain the love
or beloved agrees 10 give great 1ea
moro because the transaction was looke'
al through the eyes Of love, or that l
was not looked at at all. the parties be
ing, as tradition has IT, binded
: love"
The defendant also sought 70 prove a
the trial that the patented or Per1ec9e
gun was not the same in which the PLAIN
tiffs former husband was interested, uu
the evidence disproved that. The cour
ordered Peterson TO make an accounun
10 Mrs. Stuart OF all royalties receive
by him from the Remington arms coii'
pany as demanded In her compliant