Show BEFORE JUDGE ANDERSON A Big Mining Suit on TrialOther Legal Basinets The biff raining suit of the Old Jordan vs the I Niagara involving the ownership of valuable mining property at Bingham came up for trial before Judge Anderson yesterday Bennett Marshall Bradley and Williams and Van Cott cppeartng for the plaintiff while W H Dickson and W 0 Hall represented the defendant Several witnesses were examined and it Is expected ex-pected that tho trial will occupy a week at least t WANTS A SEW TRIAL In the caso of W S McCornick TS Henry I Sadler which was recently decided in favor of the defendant a motion for a new trial was submitted TIME TO ANSWER In the case or Rudolph AlE vs the Oquirrh Water and Land company the defendants were allowed until January 2 to answer T C n = Injunction suit i i It will be remembered that a short time ago Constable Brown attached a lot of spikes fishplates fish-plates etc belonging the Utah Central railway rail-way on an execution issued in favor of J C I Larsfn against tho railway company The company yesterday brought suit against Larsen Lar-sen and Brown aske that they be restrained from In any manner interfering with the property prop-erty of the railway and that Brown be instructed in-structed to deliver the property to the plaintiff Another Suit Against J W Tonne etui A suit has been filed in the Third District court in which the plaintiffs are tho E CCoCln Hardware company tho St Louis Car Wheel company Joseph J Duckworth and all others similarly situated who desire to become parties par-ties The defendants are the Utah Western Railway company the Salt Lake Eastern Railway company the Utah Central Rail company John W Young Isaac M Waddell Daniel Harrington W A Kossiter Charles W Hardy John M Whlttaker David C Williams John H Young Ben W Drigps Joseph GoJaard Brigham S Young Chris Samuel Booth Robert W Sloan Junius F Wells Legrand Young Joseph Young and I Joseph Ulchar laon Tho plaint ffs allege that on April Ih90 there was duly rendered a judgment ag Iinst the Utah Central Railway company and In favor of the E C Coffin Hardware Hard-ware company for the sum 01 311842 with SW50 costs and that on August 22 1891 an execution I ex-ecution was issued on said judgment instructing the United States marshal to take all the property prop-erty belonging the road and sell the samethe proceeds to be applied to the satisfaction of the I judgment On October 17 1891 the execution was returned unsatisfied A similar matter concerns the St Louis Car Wheel company on a judgment of 122G I with costs 52i50 the only difference being that SOO was paid on account I on April 14 1891 c i 1 |