Show INi COURT CIRCLES The Disruption in the Bothwell Canal Company DECISIONINTHE MANDAMUS CASES Suit to Compel Payment of Commissions on Real Estate SalesOther Judicial Judi-cial Hatters On tho opening of the Third district court yesterday yes-terday morning Judge Zane rendered a decision in the mandamus which have been mandawuscae pending pend-ing against the city registrars The court reviewed re-viewed at some length the evidence in the cases as heretofore published in these columns and also reviewed the circular Issued by the commission commis-sion which had been offered in evidence During Dur-ing the course of the lengthy decision the court presented the following points In the Cumberland Cumber-land case its substance as follows The question at Issue was whether the acts ot the registrar were judicial or ministerial The complalnanttHenr Cumberland had said that he wanted to register he was entitled do so He was advised to take counsel He exhibited a certificate of naturalization which was objected ob-jected by tho registrar who advised him to get an endorsement from th6 present clerk The registrar should have lilled out a blank oath regtrr plaintiff oa the first statement made and when he refused registration registra-tion Later the plaintiff went to tho registrars house and Insisted that he be registered I regis-tered Morris refused to register him ana referred re-ferred him to the last week in December when an office wouldtbe opened andMue notice given gven Was it the specific duty of the defendant to have registered plaintiff Tho Utah commission commis-sion issued a circular which is a fair construe tlo of the law and under this the registrars were acting By this circular the registration commenced Monday November 4 I and ended before December 16 Judge Zane reviewed the circular at some length ad said that the registrar reg-istrar was required when a voter was objected t to have a hearing This raised him to the ranltof a judlcal officer But before this point reached office is ministerial The registration officer has no discretion then He I not bound to tao any oath i ho knows the facts are false But i the registrar refuses a man who Is entitled en-titled to register he would do so at his peril The discretion of the registrar would protect him whenhe was acting in a judicial capacity but not so in a ministerial capacity fac was the case under the territorial law Congress in 1SJS2 made some additional disqualifications of voter The United States supreme court In substance authorizes the registrars to receive evidence and says in effect that they are not confined con-fined to an affidavit I they reject a man for reasonable cause and not maliciously they are not liable for damages Has the act of 1887 made any change That Is where the whole question turns The law of 1887 prescribes the form of proof it is by affidavit and as to that the officer has no discretion But the officer Is authorized to Inquire whether a person is guilty or has been convicted of certain offenses when application is made for registration registra-tion In regard to thls latter clause the regis ton regrd res trar should exercise due diligence He hasjao right to trifle with the rights of the voter which are very important as upon the expression of the voter the government stands None but superficial thoughtless or wicked men would trifle with a voters rights I am of opinion that the registrar can inquire in reference to disqualifications dis-qualifications under the laws of Congress It is his duty to make the Inquiry So far his acts are not ministerial The mandamus in this case and in that of J H Back and of William J Bachman vs E R Clute are hereby denied I devolves on the Utah commission to see that these registrars do their duty faithfully TO SECURE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION Louis E Bamberger and Jacob A Greenwald brought suit in the Third district court yesterday yester-day against Benjamin Rothschild In their inI complaints the plaintiffs alleged that in November Novem-ber defendant employed plaintiffs to procure purchasers pur-chasers for the Currie property located west of the Cllft house that defendant secured said property and the purchaser to buy from the defendant for 1008125 that afterwards the plaintiff In pursuance or said employment did procure Frank H Dyer to purchase said property pro-perty at said price from the defendant The defendant promised to pay plaintiffs the sum of 11W for said services That the plaintiffs have demanded the said 500 from defendant but he refused and still refuses to pay the same therefore plaintiff prays judgment for the sum esthpaj oLSSOO with ti 1 legal l IJ Interest from date of filing of I ii iTHE nnvlewEtn CAL CO PAY John R Bothwell yesterday brought suit against Samuel M a T Roland roJg Conklln James H Bacon nsg Conklin I Mortgage Trust company a Missouri corporation IOzt1 complaint he recites the labor performed by him In carrying on the construction of the Bearriver canal and alleges that In June 1889 ho contracted con-tracted with Jarvis and Conklin and sold them a three sevenths interest therein for the sum of 15000 the same to be paid on completion of the organization and the delivery of the capital stk I is alleged that In this contract the defendants de-fendants agreed to purchase the bonds to bo issued byto said anib a bonus of 2 to 3 p cent to be allowed defendants de-fendants 1 was agreed that the stock should be received by the defendant as individuals indi-viduals and not as a corporation That the plaintiff then made a contract with the Jarvis Couklln company by which it was agreed that the canal company should issue bonds which were to be purchased by the defendant corporation corpora-tion at 7S cents on the dollar of their face value That the plaintiff having contracted heavy liabilities upon the belief that the Jams Conklin company would carry out its contract and knowing that a failure on their part would g g R end the project signed papers agreeing among other things that plaintiff give the defendant the right to vote on 8300000 gve six years the purpose being to give them control during that time The plaintiff alleges that the paper was procured without consideration and Igned under duress and te is not in good conscience con-science held so bound tb any lsF of the same He further shows that JII Bacon was chosen secretary of the canal company and entt ieaa ecr lda after the stock certificates were Issued he forwarded to ConkllnJarns certificates four and five for 10000 find afterwards the plaintiff procured two certificates to be deposited de-posited with the Jarvis Conklin company and received a receipt for them That the Jars Conklln company thereafter transfered to Jarvis and Conklin In contravention of their trust the said certificates That Jarvis and Conklin threatened to vote said iUOO shares of stock and unless restrained by the court they will obtain control of the canal company and oust the plaintiff Mr Bothwell asks that the defendants be restrained re-strained from voting the shares of stock referred to from exercising any control over them and that they be compelled to deliver the same to the plaintif and that James H Bacon be ordered or-dered to vote upon the books of the canal company com-pany that the plaintiff is the owner of these shares of stock and that he be required to deliver de-liver them to the plaintiff Judge Powers C E Dey and W H Dickson appear as attorneys for the plaintiff A temporary order restraining the defendant from voting was made The summons has not yet been served on the defendants but service will probably be made today OTHER BUSINESS Erastus H Hall vs Eugene Ray Hall et al plaintiff sworn and the court appoints as commissioners com-missioners e In Kendall William H Robinson and John A Hamilton and decree as prayed Frank Yearance vs Salt Lake city on motion of defendant ten days additional time allowed to file notice and statement for new trial Samuel E Vance vs Southern California Insurance In-surance company finally argued by counsel and case submitted Charles J Neublund 1 Earnest J Young et al set for Friday the 20th Ell L Price et al 1 Hannah Games set for Friday the 20th A H Goddard vs Ada E Goddard decree for divorce granted James 1 Bulen vs I H Stringfellow demurrer de-murrer overruled three days given 10 answer |