OCR Text |
Show THE LEGAL LOO. Proceeding of the Biipreme and County Courtt. At the opening of the session of the territorial supremo court yesterday Robeit Scott and Stephen Fra.cr, the former of Tooele, the latter of Rich county, were appointed United Stales commissioners. , Severar attorneys were admitted to the bar after which the BartchCutlor came up. This is an action in which Ihe plaintiff seeks to obtain a writ of mandamus to compel the defendant to issue a warrant, for J'.'OUSO for services rendered as superintendent of county affairs. After being nrgu:d tlio case was taken under advisement. The following cases were get for trial on the dates mentioned: Juno it. William Glasmatin. appellant appel-lant vs. Mary O'Donuell, respondent. June 4. United States, appellant, vs Carl Christian, respondent. Boyd Park etal., appellants, vs. Lucy M. iligbec, respondent. The People, appellant, vs. Joseph . Fairbanks, respondent. The People, appellant, vs. John Par-man, Par-man, respondent. June 5. Wolf Marks ct al., respondents, respond-ents, vs. W. II. Culmerctal., appellants. appell-ants. George II. Cope, appellant, vs. James Cope, etal., respondents. Sarah . Chapman et al., appellants, vs. Elizabeth Handley, et al., respondents. respond-ents. June 0. A. T. Webb, administrator, vs. Deliver & Rio Grande Western railway rail-way company, appellant. June !. Emma Geneva Price Wells, respondent, vs, Daniel H. Wells, appellant. appel-lant. J. H. Saunders, respondent, V9. the Sioux City Nursery company. Richard H. Steele, jr., respondent, vs. T. S. Bolcy et al., appellants. June 10. It. W. Young et al., respondents, re-spondents, vs. Elijah Sells, canvasser, appellant. June It. Sarah J. Weaver, respondent, respond-ent, vs. Daniel Weaver, appellant. Samuel E. Vance et al., respondents, vs. John 11. Whalon, appellant. Juno IS. Wasatch mining company, respondent, vs. Crescent mining company, com-pany, appellant. Court then adjourned until this morning morn-ing at 10 o'clock. The court convened again this morning and after admitting two attorneys at-torneys .o practice in the courts, heard a couple of motions for continuances, ami adjourned until 2 o'clock,, at which time Receiver Dyer's compensation for services came up for action. Judge Anderson in an opinion, affirmed af-firmed the ruling of the district court in the damage suit of Frank Yenranco against the city of Salt Lake. The action ac-tion was brought to recover damages on account of 700 or 800 brick obstructing obstruct-ing Third South street in front of the ptaintiff's properly. Tho district court gave the plaintiff judgment for tho obstruction ob-struction and tho city took the case to 'the supreme court iii order to have it reversed. But Judge Anderson didn't look at it that way. |