| Show JUDGE ZAMS COURT Wolstenholm is Granted Further Time to Answer I A DIVORCE GOES BY DEFAULT The lIoldens to Show Cause Why They Should Kot be Punished for ContemptWhat They Allege The case of Matthew Gilby vs Spencer Clawson came up for trial before Judge Zane yesterday morning The plaintiff sued to recover 210 alleged to be due him on a contract for excavating a cellar After bearing the evidence the court took the matter under advisement The case of M Idleman et aL vs William McIntyre was dismissed In the case of A S Harmon vs A J White the bill of exceptions was settled and signed Din the case of E A Folland vs D Wol stenholm involving the title to a seatin the 4 city council the defendant was allowed until April 23d to answer This case was practically settled by Judge Anderson some days ago when the defendants demurrer was overruled and about the only purpose an answer can serve will be to gain a little i time for the defendant In the case of Abbott vs Andrew the de fendant was allowed ten days additional time in which to answer In the case of N Treweek VE William McKay a writ of attachment was ordered issued The divorce case of Sarah Ann Allen vs James Allen was then taken up The de fendant failed to appear and a decree of divorce was granted on the ground of cruel treatment The plaintiff testified that her husband had knocked her down kicked her and threatened to kill her with a hatchet and habitually used abusive vile and obscene ob-scene language The parties live in San pete county In the case of Stricklyvs Hauerback the defendant was allowed ten days additional time in which to answer In the afternoon the case of the Live Pine Consolidated Mining Company vs the South Galena Mining company L E Holden and Alfred E Holden came up on p an order requiring the defendant to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt in failing to obey an injunction of the court The suit involves the ownership J of valuable mining property in Bingham 1 and some tme ago an injunction was granted restraining the defendants from extracting any ore from certain property involved in the litigation The plaintiffs ulleged that in December and January last the defendants in violation of the injunction injunc-tion entered upon the ground and removed therefrom at least 450 tons of ore which was sold and shipped The defendants denied that they had violated the injunction and claimed that they had extracted only 200 tons of ore which was stored at the mine and held to abide the result of the litigation The case will be submitted today In the case of Calvin Cartwright vs J I I Blackburn the defendant was allowed five days in which to answer In the divorce case of Louisa 0 Young vs Ewing V Young the defendant wa ordered to pay into court S35 for costs 2 5 attorneys fees and 515 per month alimony |
