OCR Text |
Show PAGE TWO THE DAILY RECORD TUESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1972 T Judgments 207465 - Blair Walking CURTIS C. JOHNS EN; 205549 - vs Con District Court 928 vs J. EDMUND CURFEW; Pltf $3,078.68; $350.00; $28.80; $3,422.43; $350.00; (2 cause 203327 - James D. Kimberly and Marietta Kimberly vs STff 201086 - Master Pltf $1,220.86; $24.60; $450.00 OF UTAH AND RICHELE of Action - Judg on Cause No verdict; - foreman MCKINNEY Lloyd P. Shurtleff, 927 AND RICHELE MCKINNEY; No 927 DYNATR0N M. Defendant and Appellant. A. Kimberly CORPN, PUAL H. J. KELLER; RICH-IN- S Pltf $860.07; $250.00; $31.60; action Judg on verdict; Floyd P. Shurtleff, foreman; 927 - Richard $270.72; $29.40; 9,28 201115 - Paul Schwarts vs BRUCE - Otto Buehner 206258 Co. & $1,100.00; $25.20; vs SKYLINE CONST. CO. AND UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY Pltf CO; $60.00; 925 $1, 284.00 207464 - The Lomas & Co. vs ROBERT R. Nettle-to- n WANLACE foreclosure; 927 - Shauna Nolte Pltf $2,762.00; 926 - Rosalie Stevens and State of Utah vs DEE MELVIN Pltf$940.00; 926 207293 - D. E. Pedlow Inc. vs LUCILLE ' Vivian Padilla Cummings 8448 - Marilyn Banks vs Lloyd CR0PP B. Pltf$8,128.54; $1,058.00; 8449 Crosby Sally Crosby vs Roland $25.00; 927 8451 - Dianna M. Talbert vs Roger Lynn Talbert 207721 - Eastern Airlines, Inc vs DAVID S. MOODY; Pltf$2,010. 8452 - Jane Sears vs David 204726 - Controlled Receiva- 8454 - Pauline 0. Cox vs Kenneth Eugene Cox 928 bles, Inc. vs JEANS U. S. A. INC Pltf$7,021.76; $26.40 928 205172 CARL State of BOYER; 926 Utah Pltf$924.00 HOWARD TERRY Pltf$638.00; 926 I. M. INTERNATION- L. FREIGHT - Rita Pullman vs 1984 RICHARD C. PULLMAN A. sportation, Inc. garn; $205.90 925 Pltf $662.95 Lee Wakewood Peterson 204226 - Gene's Building Mat. 7528 Inc vs BOB BROWN; Pltf$243.63 $29.70; 928 Doris A. Barney 206914 - Gene's Building Mat LeRoy L. Inc. vs DAN MCCRAW; Pltf $349.41; $26.10928 Eltz vs - Arthur 6528 - E. Jarvis vs Jarvis Jacqueline A. Baker v Baker 4947 - Kenneth Gail Bundy vs Betty L. Bundy 7218 - Adrla Etta Chavis vs Richard Joseph Chavis 7461 - Norma Hall vs Blaine E. Hall 7585 - Ellen Lovejoy vs Vaughn 0. Lovejoy MODELS j ORDER NOW!! CALLIOR SVITAK Many 73 Mercurys, iimmoaioTv Mark IVi, Contis., ready for oviiwry vwwi FMI MMNlfNANCI a IXTtNOf D WAMUNTY AVAIL. ON SOMI 731 DON RICHARDS L CASINO, 633 S. MAIN J I 359-866- 1 INC. S.l.C. 7690 - Annette Bean DeSpain vs Vernon DeSpain 7898 - OR i mere fact that it was the lender who physically transported the car to the motor company has nothing to do with the transfer of possession thereof. The lender had no knowledge that the car was stolen. It only wanted to collect the money due it. The defendant wanted to trade the car and get cash in connection with the deal. It was he who made the actual transfer of the purported title and who thereby divested himBell of all rights to the possession of the car which he theretofore may have had. It was only then that the transfer of possession was made. The lender only had custody of the automobile. That custody was for a limited purpose only, to wit: To insure payment of the ioan. judge may properly intervene in a trial of a case to promote expedition, and prevent unnecessary waste of time, or to clear up some obscurity . . . Conversation between the judge and counsel in court is often necessary. . . . The prosecutor was new and inexperienced. The questions which he attempted to frame were obvious, and in the interest of saving time the court made a few suggestions. A The law is stated in the case of People v. (Cal. App, 1948): I Victoria Farmer vs Richard John Farmer 5027 - Edna Butler Heddlesten D. Heddlesten vs George 7754 - Elyse Clawson Quinn v James H. Quinn, Jr. 7556 - Jasper LeRoy Barr vs Bertha Irene Horsley Barr - Jeanlne Ellison vs Joel Elllson(annul) Harris, 198 P. 2d 60, 65 law does not require the judge to maintain a sphinxlike attitude and merely to announce his decision upon mooted points. On the contrary, he must see to it that no factual issue is left in a fog when by proper statement or inquiry the testimony might be made clear. His primary duty is to see that justice is administered, and this cannot under all circumstances be done by silence and inaction in the presence of a controversy. . . . Johnny 5532 - P. Colleen Glenny vs James R. Glenny 1973 followed. Eltz Divorces Granted $25.20; $100.00; 928 ANY MAK! OR MODEL That the trial judge erred in receiving documents to prove title to the car. J. That the trial judge erred in not dismissing the information because there was no showing that the defendant transferred possession of the stolen car, 8461 - Robert Boyd Rosenlund vs Karma Irene Rosenlund 207285 - Bakers Local 401 Fed.Cr. Union vs LORY SAXTON; Jerry 8460 - Gayle H. vs Tran- wit- 2. 8459 - Adeline W. Schroeder vs Robert E. Schroeder Pltf$166.25; 926 AL; That the trial judge assisted the prosecutor in examining 1. nesses. Association provide; 8457 - JoAnn D. Wakewood vs 8458 - Ludean Johns vs Gary D. Peterson 187994 - Brenda Huston vs MIC V EL DAVID HUSTON vs reversal are: As to the contention that the court erred in asking questions, we do ' not find any error. The Canons of Judicial Ethics of the American Bar 8456 - Shauna Aragon vs Samuel Joseph Aragon 204736 - Wilma Terry and State of Utah vs Sears 8455 - Deborah Elaine Barney vs Val Ernest Barney vs upon for The 8450 - Mary Jalalne Wagner v Elmer Arthur Wagner Co. & errors relied ' B. Banks 204737 STEVENS; 8446 - James Cummings vs 12, As to thv last claim, there is no merit at all. The defendant had registered the car under a serial number lifted from an automobile being dismantled m a wrecking yard. He had obtained a loan and used the automobile as security. Alter default, the lender picked up the car and with defendant's permission delivered it to a car dealer in order for the defendant to trade it lor a pickup truck. The trade arrangement was such that defendant was able to pay the lender in full. Thereafter the officers of the law took possession ot the stolen automobile, and this criminal prosecution 8447 - Sherry Baker vs Ronald Baker St. and DEWEY NOLTE; 928 Divorces Filed AND LA MORNA WANLACE; of Utah vs Pltf$6500. BRQADHEAD; The 928 206371 - Gene's Building Mat. Inc. vs LAWRENCE GIBSON; Pit W. 926 442 205713 - Gene's Building Mat. Inc. vs JACK RUDD; Pltf $290.28; $28.80; Barr vs TONI MARIE BARR; Judg In favor of defendant; $600.00 5211 The appellant, hereinafter called defendant, appeals from a jury verdict and judgment and sentence pursuant thereto for the crime of transferring a stolen motor vehicle knowing the same to have been stolen, in violation of Section U. C. A. 1953. The proof is ample to the verdict. sustain 41-1-1- v STATE OF UTAH AND RICHELE No cause of MCKINNEY; L. M. Cummings, Clerk ELLETT, Justice: 928 193780 - Doris 1972 Gerald Fay Tuggle, Steck vs P. AND September 25, Pltf KELBCH; 926 - John 207350 FILED v. Lease, Inc. - Lucille tfelbsch W. No. 12695 Plaintiff and Respondent, vs J. MEL MEIER; Pltf$1500. $300.00; $27.70; 928 vs RAYMOND $12,420.00; cause of action Judg on verd. Lloyd P. Shurtleff, foreman State of Utah, of action) 928 128200 203327 - James D. Kimberly and Marltta vs STATE OF UTAH In The Supreme Court Of The State Of Utah Financial Corp FMA The ... While we think it preferable for the trial judge to refrain from interferiwith the orderly examination of witnesses, we do not think there was any ng error in the manner in which the trial judge acted in getting at the truth. The complaint made about the documents of title which were admitted into evidence seems to relate to the fact that the custodian did not bring the original into court- - Photostatic copies were introduced and oral testimony given that they were true and exact reproductions of the originals. Ordinarily the admissibility of evidence is for the trial court, and in the absence of an abuse of discretion on the part of the court the ruling will not be disturbed on appeal. While the principal custodian of the records was out of the state and unable to testify, other employees testified as to the correctness of the copies. The State moved for a continuance so that the absent witness might be brought back to testify. The court, however, refused to grant a continuance, apparently convinced that his testimony would not be necessary. the case of State v. Sedillo, 480 P. 2d 401 (N. Mex. 1971), the court held that a copy of a radio log was sufficiently authenticated by testimony, even though there was no attempt to have the copy certified as an official record. In Rule 68(2), Rules of Evidence, provides: This rule does not prevent the proof of official records or of entry or lack of entry therein by any method authorized by any applicable statute or by rules of evidence at common law. Other proof. This is similar to the New Mexico statute regarding the admission of an official document when certification is not available. Besides, the evidence showed that the defendant had admitted that at the time he bought the car, he knew it was stolen. 8283 Thomas find no reason to reverse the conviction and, therefore, affirm the sentence. and judgment We 1 |