Show i ll AGAINST MH CIAWSONI i L Supreme Court Decision in a Contcsl Over an Alleyway i I I Jj I > OPINION IN KAYSVlllE COUNCil CASE t il I II t fhh JI mrm Jog r 0 00 ot IIIlIIhall I t I utal 11 1 III r Olh Itr j I Ii l 1 The Supreme court InnJeu down two rt opinions this afternoon one In the case i I 1 iP ut Spencer Clavvson alutirf and appellant I i l 1 ap-pellant against George V Wallace et nl defendants and respondents affirming I 1 l affirm-ing the Judgment j ut the liwr cuut flp 1 nnd the other In the casj of n Shepherd ft company respondent i I ngolnst the city council of Xajsvllie lf I city alllrmlne the Judgment of the Ii trial i court 11 11J i1 i Action In the Ort case was commenced 111 i com-menced In 1885 to quiet title to a strip of the of land an alley way northwest I 0 Salt Lake Theater Mr Clawnon t claimed title under nn heir of Brigham f Young but Iho reoponolenlo aorge Y rti 111 Wallace ct al derived their Interest I from B L Sprague J h The court finds that Sprague was not tj i a competent witness to testily to admissions I I If t admis-sions made and conv ersallons had with H Tresldent Young but did not necessarily i 1 itt j necessar-ily render Incompetent the testimony P 1 r vt1t J SI IIi CIwon that iitk1 at Ihe Ume Ihe allegd convlIons 1 r j r k 1 I f flh l ts 1 0 1 1 nnd Iht rpolldelllB fortelted their i r Ights hy nol hMlng Ihe probale court llr pau upon It The courl ay thai Ihe I r I claim of the respondent wa not all 111kr b claln ithin the manlng ot 11 f jj i rg statute Upon Ihe hole at Ihe ttlmoIlY Hi r trial rrna h justoinEof CI by otp 111tStt ondrallce of testimony and Ihrtor urn Juitlce the Judgme delivered the opinion i l whlh Is I concurrPd i In by Chief Justli I J 1rJ O Z4e and case Justice of Shepherd Barteh Company v = Imgf41 fl the KaysvlUe CIIY JJJf was pro j I a 1 tfJUi I = rtaFn r Judgment obtained the re 1 Il ators against Kaysvllle CIlY or to com t pel the council to levy a lax upon the tI axable property of the ct lIy for the fl i Ii fI I i vis urpose submitted I of paying upon the a iipUI latlon The case o aits which were that In O 11 ober 189 I I J he city of Kaysvllle negol cd a loan r at 5000 with the respond s for the f i cl uniose of building a city hall I Issuing nerefor coupon bonds In I e sum of I 1000 each Default w made In 1 J jI he payment of these suit w s brought nd Judgment for HO recovered j lndrhne city The c IY had no 11 unds to pay tho JuOgme and look f Ut j no steps towards levying1 tax tor the Ili I l purpose of paying It Justice iartcli who delivered the rlrilon sa > s Common observation L IH I I I ol r IIWjI 1 c nrporated city there U I property with I In Its limits which 14 I subject to taxa 1 > I1 J tlon for city purposes anil It is lule lor itf f I Ioe who 0 cnlruoted wllh he munl Itl It j leal ecvcinment to declare that they IJ annot ascertain such property It may l aue InC < lvNnc > It Is I true but In R 7 I envnlllc will not excue II tallure I toj py a lgImlo debl or itlfy aIl I jud mnt aln1 Ihe municipality Il r f I 1 Chief Juillce h fnlod JutI |