Show A DAMAGE SUIT Action of the JIll and Elevator Com Vaiiy Ii Ialne l < ne f The case of the Salt Lake Mill and I Elevator company vs Fame Lyne came on for trial before Judge Mer r ritt yesterday morning The arguments t were concluded last evening and the case will go to the jury this morning I is alleged that in November 1192 this the defendant began an action in t court aaainst the plaintuts claiming i the sum ot 575 with interest and costs on account of alfalfa seed sold and delivered For the purpose of securing se-curing a writ of attachment against the i plaintiffs property defendants made a certain affidavit in effect that the defendants de-fendants fraudulently contracted the debt I is now charged that such attachment at-tachment was wrongfully and maliciously E malici-ously obtained and that by reason oft of-t he publication of the proceedings therein in the newspapers plaintiff sus lalneif great injury to their business I f A large quantity of flour they say prepare1 and ready for shipment by t tustomers vas levied upon by the United States marshal Plaintiffs also t ptate that they were put to much trouble and xpense in having the writ dissolved and the attached property ordered or-dered discharged by the court and in procuring witnesses and affidavits to prove the falsity of the defendants assertions I as-sertions The actual damages are laid at 3000 and vindictive daages are demanded t in the sum of 2000 with interest and costs t In their answer the defendants deny that there was any malice on their part in the swearing out of the writ of attachment and plead probable cause as the ground of their proceedings 1 proceed-ings In the case of J C Heesch et al vs John Morgan et a1 five days additional addition-al time was allowed to answer Leave to file a cross complaint was fed in the ease of Fetherstone et alf al-f vs Page et al |