Show SUPREME COURT Two Opinions Were Handed Down Yesterday Two opinions were yesterday handed down by the state supreme court In the cases of Charles Mader plaintiff plain-tiff vs Taylor Romney Armstrong company defendant also Charles Mader vs Salt Lake Building and Manufacturing Man-ufacturing company the opinion was written by District Judge Hart and concurred in by Chief Justice Zane and Justice Miner The two causes being dependent upon thesame facts were dealt with > tocether and the judlD1ent of the lower court was affirmed The findings of the court below were > < = In favor of the defendants and the actions ac-tions were dismissed at plaintiffs CQSt A motion for a new trial was made and denied and an appeal taken from the judgment and order of the court The opinion says that while an appeal ap-peal will not lie to this court from an order denying a motion for a new trial under section 9 article S of the state constitution yet on appeal from the judgment the errors committed by the trial court in denying motion for a new trial may be reviewed when properly embodied In a bill of exceptions or otherwise properly preserved in the record The actions were brought to recover 703 money had and received and the supreme court failed to find any reversible re-versible error and affirmed the judgment judg-ment of the district court New Trial in Nelson vs the S P Co The other opinion was in the case of Alfred H Nelson administrator of the estate of the late Charles A Nelson vs the Southern Pacific company appel ant The opinion which was written by Justice Bartch and concurred In by Chief Justice Zane and District Judge Hiles reversed the lower court and granted a new trial Charles A Nelson was riding on a Southern Pacific freight train taking care of a lot of sheep which he was shipping and in the line of his duty was Walking on top of a car when the train entered the snow sheds near Truckee where he was struck by the roof of the snow shed knocked off the train and killed The administrator of his estate sued to recover 50000 damages and the jury I In the district court at Ogden rendered a verdict in his favor for 20000 and at tht time of the lower courts denying notion for a new trial the amount of the verdict was reduced to 15000 The appeal was taken from both the judgment judg-ment and the order overruling the mo tion for a new trial but in line with the new rule of procedure only the former was considered The court granted the reversal on the ground that the trial court erred in givIng giv-Ing certain instructions to the jury and also erred in admitting certain testi many |