OCR Text |
Show THE SUPREME COURT. The Difference! Between n Irrigating Company and tile Contractors. The supreme court met again this morning, morn-ing, Chief Justice Zane presiding and Ass... elates Audersou and Blackburn present. The morning was devoted to the arguments of the attorneys in the numerous cases of liti-gatiou liti-gatiou growing out of the disputes between the contractors and the. Bear Lake and River Water Works and Irrigation company. The contractor for the work was William Gnr land, who sub-let the contracts to Aunctt .V Thompson and their assignees (iriiticn & Vandcrbcrg. The measurements of all excavations ex-cavations and other work was to be done by the chief engineer oi the company and it, was on his estimates that the contractors were paid. Anuett v. Thompson claimed that the measures were incorrect aud wrong and that they had not received compensation cnnugti. They sued Garland aud obtained a judgment of about $28, OCX) against him. The result was a lot of complicated litign tion and numerous suits netun en the parti. -were brought, all of which are now on appeal ap-peal before the supreme court. Today the arguments are being made on the appeal at the Bear Lake River Water Works and Irrigation company against William Garland Gar-land the respondent, Hon. L. R. Rhodes conducted the argument lor the appellants and Judge W. L. Maginnisis conducting the case for Garland The case of Malaehi Dillon, who was con victcd at Ogden of voluntary manslaughti r for the killing of a bartender at the Broom hotel, was up before the Supreme court this morning, and was ordered placed on the calendar cal-endar for a hearing on an appeal. C. H. Martin was appointed a Unit. I States commissioner for Salt Luke City today. to-day. The District Court. Henry Pews has brought, suit AgaingLD. Hirschler &Co., in whose employ he foT" mcrly was. lie alleges In his complaint that he was hired as assistant business manager man-ager at a salary of $150 per month and 15 per cent of the profit of the first year and 20 per cent of the protits of the second year. Ha asks a judgment of $705.15 with Interest from January L In the case of Joseph Goddard vs. John W. Voung et al.. Judge Zane granted de-n tendants time to answer until February 1. James M. John vs. C. It. Wilbur; defen- j allowed twenty-five days to answer. Thomas Venard et . al. vs. L. K. FT olden I defendants allowed until February l to u:J answer. 1 |