Show I 1 4 a 41 1 1 FI 4 4 EP 11 HEARING i ia ki I 1 jentof Test Suit brou brought glit 1 ai q I 1 i by summit county II 11 it IS ATTACKED k I 1 I 1 4 I 1 i ad r I 1 for ina the oe colenne contend that i ril for or the license in unconstitutional do de t antion thou Is ion 0 gendered Sen dered in tho the hennefer Hen I 1 I 1 i 1 state lage case contest over th alio ti it 0 awls of 0 a the stow art mille I 1 int it W aca re poli policies cleg abe ibex receiver 1 I 0 iii final q i action itrich alch la Is beir being 1 watched I 1 interest DY by uncap own ell I 1 t the state slate as lail heard on r by judge norrell yesterday lalle lie of 0 the iho case Is su summit malt coun I 1 john L hoyden boyden clerk agal nil nl d outa ason son th the ac tion on having 0 wight taught to recover 1101 10 alleged alle geil to 1 from tin the defendant for or the graz 4 vara aln sheep in that county be bc jh sir lay bolh and august 19 29 1897 i iga set tout out in the complaint that the county commissioners ol of w of 0 jrolf t it county passel passed an ordinance on 71 v y ig 1 ns fixing a 1 l certain license I 1 izing erasing of 0 sheep in that county pit 41 the he defendant was liable 1 of it Is 1 jiler der to the amount s I 1 t out that he neither took on out t by the ort OIL BM made necessary I 1 nor paid the amount for which liable judgment Is prayed for or rl i sum um or 0 it Is also alho asked up e county be given alien a lien on tile tho for the amount ordinance in question was passed t ie e commissioners under authority ad to lo them by the ISMS law s of 0 WS 1896 R defendant in III the ease case demurred I 1 i coir plaint upon the ground that I 1 I 1 not got state slate a cause of 0 action and j the lh argument of the demurrer 1 iday d ay the validity ot of the ordinance i mucked F chur ur crown brown and 3 H 11 aio lo 10 lipfor or the demurrer find and parley S hams and henry shields opposed B defense contends that the lift lily itly in ques question li IR bemp ly a tax lax and the county commissioners have cherity aih orlly to levy such a tax lit in I 1 art it ot of the contention parts of 0 m s t and nd S article ll 11 of 0 the he con linn on are re cited as follows ol lows all my ty to in the state not mit exempt under gottlic mott as of I 1 h lic a united stated or under shall be taxed in a to its value to lc be ascertained S also alno the le re shall I 1 lc 0 by law it a uniform and equal I 1 assessment ts and taxation on all in this the state a according ce orating to its I 1 in money etc I 1 the defense insists has not been in the cage under consideration lit bit the bet act ot of the Commis commissioners sinners ware ore void plaintiff produced a california ami n the argument which urn rim the of the ord ordinance inanc it e defeno insists that the consal 1 of 0 california differs from that h b on the th subject suit has bem been brought aa n test mil 4 ua be ae appealed to the su R couet by tho losing logins party in county nty the license licence in question W to to VM f iw for or the th present bear ear aim in being belli in excess of 0 all other jilt 1 ot of the he county comity combined inho NG NCE CASE it t over the amount derived hrom in the stewart policies art company has a action dickie xi egan and mccormick S co to recover cover of it insurance mony call rt d as UH it of 0 a tire are at at the stewart nine mine ity Y IS 15 and now on deposit co s allacc vl in the hi complaint that milr 3 ISM the stewart ill III gave to the lt polly an option upon its prop ur r anki 31 and that the bing lining company gave fl like ike op ks tick 1 1 1 egan il an ico who no acre vocie fi ly 1 6 or r 1 the he property and jelm ito to pay a royalty on all ores r taking laing possession of 0 the prop prep lck egan co insured it t hoaas s by fire to the hie amount of 0 the property waa burned on 1818 19 and va was as collected the itie insurance cornea company ray As A the W rt cOmp company ailY and dickson co each claimed the money money elved it was wa decided to d posit ccormick 8 blink bank and have the imbed 28 el upon bation by the court 1 eged by the plaintiff that at it ol at the fire belth neither r tho the ring mining ing company nor dickson co had pall paid a any Y part of t the price of 0 the 1 also alio MS the property after al ESTATE DECISION tia Is lost lose but may win in an other action ear ulles hiler rendered a decision yes ye in n tie four our complicated cases in A H Henn ferr r rebecca A mclaughlin et ct c t aland I 1 ill C tire are plaintiffs rely rel et Y and jennie E hays ha la Is de dc 1 vu alls lir 0 aught by the plaintiffs to the ie title to IL a valuable ploce piece ot of y in tb lh t ern port portion lein ol of 1 chich alch I abraham I 1 hla his 1 lays gave to grandchildren in III MS IVO in ration van of 0 their agreement to t li a 11 d h aln n ire 16 for or life after alth th the par probate court rendered EC of 0 it in n favor of 0 the in accordance ance iv with ith N en e into lic nd between tween abrahim haya by c to bearc Y in n t the e prop lie meantime jennie E hays of elij lilliah B W V I 1 lays ilay deham ano I 1 only son ann oi abra abraham hays hay irli and the decree ution u upon un iho inbound that to a halt half I rite reat lit in 1 arty th the decree ot of trite entered rod ovir over ovi r her objection and ana she he then appe appealed aled to the court whore a it was held hed e court was wan without 0 n t to make the decree ot of aills dla n nd a was att erat ent red dt dl y t toe a land 1 aid one half to jennie an nil T tile other halt half to A it an d the I 1 other three grand J et at ai then than biga 1 ault U I 1 t he property ile e E hayg to quilt quiet eit 1 1 air a lm a rinds and from rom lh evidence their clr per into HUO part of 0 the i on tr ac it as iii between them tn ind d abra I 1 lly aal yal 1 and I that they I 1 entitled iny at thare berne time he hiat i 1 i aenlo 1 u 1 ky J holds holda the tal itle it I 1 to an undivided vr t t tho 0 property ro lerty in trust ami no I 1 1 L of ft the al 1 holla 1 ahia t the 0 or in uli mant 4 j 11 I I 1 I 1 1 bl I 1 1 it lit 1 ul c t to 0 a ai I 1 y d F al et ill S I 1 1 f 11 I 1 in ca coial 1 1 h 0 rt 1 hit atilt h it n lorl 1 1 lt quieting title cannot is granted grant cil when the facts show that the bovini parties are entitled to a a p while finding that the plaintiffs plaintiff a would be entitled entitle li to relief andr brojer pl piilini he then ahm the complaints Ila Ints without prejudice in order flat the proper act actions learis may be instituted institute SUIT roil FOR SEn VICES caso growing out of the silver king I 1 rind and mayflower right fight judge norrell heard ii a summit county caio ca A io 90 yesterday in which george J early was waa plaintiff and jacob N X J ja and martin mcgrath were defendants Q fend ants mary sued cued to reco recover 0 two mason c of action it being alleged that 1 0 00 0 at the amount mas due inder it a contract himself an 1 the defendants fend ants in which they arrived to lo div I 1 him I 1 i v I 1 li 0 a ac the settlement of the putt pull at law against at the silver ring antl anil the mayflower flower 2 I 1 I 1 n I 1 n c companies 0 n i i x n I 1 aich h c the defend defendants an ints I 1 a W were C t about p halt r to institute ri sti tute they nere ere tso also to pay his ex cx bengs in the second cause of action parry alleged allee that he was etar oid by the aho defendants to expert certain miring claims owned by the silver king company and tho the defendants there baing a controversy contro verey between chent at tile iho time as to their respective rc rights rlph ts anil and I 1 that hat he worked 1000 davs davi the services lie says ore ero renson reasonably ably worth 3 5 per dav and judgment Is 19 de demanded mandrid for isono the defendants plead in I lri rief that the to amounts were not duei due in tiny any event until after the of the suite bulls against the silver king end and way may llover companies they alpo abw allege all re thit that the suit the silver liver kirg liaa has been anil and that the action against the mayflower Is still pending in harmony hart nony with thene theme allegations they plead pick lick of consideration and ask to be dismissed henry shields and frank hoffman onman II appeared for the plaintiff and john 3 I 1 zane for the dc defendants after th plaintiff hail rested his cose coe the defendants moved for or a tion nonsuit st it ond end the th motion was wag allowed edt thus ius alls poising of the th action IBEX REPORT r inea statement of the receipts and aad disbursements william I 1 E humphreys receiver ot of tile the ibex mine line and Sm smelling smelting elting company nied filed his final benoit in the equity division 0 of the third Di court aes ics berday the receipts and semens are as follows RECEIPTS beading house hous net receipts 13 2 personal property sold 7 11 ia 0 mane blatte not alj property 1 I SO million bullion sold bold 1 1 ah el money duo due ibex company collected hy by receiver 95 W money loney in hanns hands of German garni garnisheed end and collected by receiver total 1 I DISBURSE disbursements 74 ants EY n es of 0 oro ore attached at aitt I 1 74 72 expense account 1 I 41 4 lima rock purchase Mircha sW OR W iron oro are and mil less iras oro ore sold aall CO N oro ore purchased freight on ore 1 coke asad purchased lesi desp colio coca bold and rc halo I 1 as ia 52 payrolls payroll pay roll rolls 6 I 1 S Q C total iS wasa 2 balance in stati atah rational national bank interested parties mba may inay desire to file objections to the account have been allowed until december esth to to 10 so the th account has also been to george C E blair to audit and report district court orders st Ude baker brothers ittu it fact url ng C company vs va george tt ft a al decree of foreclosure in favor of the plaintiff now new york lite life insurance c company pany vs IV C jennin et tit al ten d days aye additional ditto dit ional naLl time for defendant dinwoodey to aias answer Nor C if freed 9 mining company dismissed W S McCorn mccornack lck vs fred smon et at al demurrer to second amended complaint argued and submitted J R talker et al vs va simon ilam berger of ct al motion for new trial overruled john H E billings vs ve E n H persons motion tor for a new trial rind and submitted T P kirkendall et at al al a Z C II 11 I 1 dismissed william Rl lerman et ct al vs henry eiseman Eia eman II 11 T gisborn vs T bruback Bruli Bru baek ack ot et al T jr abbott vs W 0 alaby dis in assed louis steiner et al vs va IL eiseman nise maji ft 4 al alint hicks arnold et ct al vs henry elseman et ct al dismissed albert 1111 inger vs henry elseman et el tit al motion for a wv new ta trial john S len lewis Is N al s john beck demurrer to t complaint overruled and ten days from notice to answer J L robson vs G 13 DIa blakely liely same order T P lev lem Is vs central trust company et ct al receiver directed to rese reserve ve 22 00 pending determination of action L 11 II dale manufacturing company a joseph n judgment in favor of nf plaintiff for frank holtman hoffman vs hercules mining company rom pany motion to appeal argued and sul submitted arthur brown bromn et lit al vs v J M richardson et ct al judgment in favor of LIAn tiff C croft vs fannie perkins tt ct al fannie perkins appointed guardian eu ardlan ad ittem of J frederick perkins davis sons sarin Is s 2 SI 31 H pape papa motion to ov L trilled and leave granted defendant to answer ni ai to the jurisdiction of the court only probate orders of imanuel deceased utah title in arance and trust cum cm piny appointed nith the n m ill 1310 tuto ot of jane shields shit ida de cased h cut ng on settlement of at acco int to re f erria to georee blaar estate tat of nf lais alpis johnson johsnon Johp non deceased dece aKed account of administrator approved estate and guardianship of I lillian illian V howard ot ct al minors aaron V howard appointed guardian cu ardlan ad libern tor for erin A howard estate of r sarah reek beck decea deceased Aed lester sterrill appointed administrator under a bond arlak 1 state of benjamin hough decoct cd order tor for sale alo of 0 roal artal estate made ustate of esther pettit deceased final account allowed and edition petition eti tion for diat all lb loution ution granted estate of at lizzle lizzie K V parker deceased same order 1 state of at J B daggs doe decease asel J order made aside order to allow administrator to accept from S L borga boggi his claim against the estate as a payment on real estate will sue tho the city derent Enget engebretson retson 1 it preparing to tile on an artion again it salt lako lake city to recover as aa to his land in section 28 tov raship 2 north rail I 1 west as the result of 0 sewage alil nelch c ge h alos upon lipon his part from the arda ity sewer all egeit that the land has been rand rid al unfit craft for cultivation court notes prank frank IL 11 rc re celTer celer of the pennsylvania Sm smelling smelting Smelt elting lne company was wan allowed 60 per month from 1 february oth last and ancl film attorney altor nev W V C hall was allowed am this or order or waa vlas male made toy by judic chey cherry W v S mccornick if 14 suing asa an wilson i t al a to collect 3 1914 on a promissory note J juck U I 1 go ch rry mada a P hi ha of I 1 aday for hearing from zee to vat inclusive |