| OCR Text |
Show ments in the contest will case of Mathew Condon, the Tintic miner who shuffled oil into the shadows and left his $75,000 to a sister who had reviled him in life until a few 6hort weeks before his death; while a brother, who, the attorneys claim, stood above the dead man's body while it was in the coffin and characterized him as a "d d dirty brute whose soul ought to Jii hell," had urged the father of the dec me" to sue to break the last will and testat aoyotf the I deceased. That is what tbe er9 jy say Pat Condon did. The case was argued at great length and submitted, and Judge Bartch doubtless will render his decision ! some time next week. j GUARDIAN APPOINTED. Estate and guardianship of Ilenry G. Foote, minor; hearing on application for guardianship; Kvan Kimball appointed guardian with bond of $11,700. Article of Incorporation. The Pacific Hedge company filed articles of incorporation with the county clerk today. to-day. Its object is to buy, sell and own patent pat-ent rights relating to the planting, cultiva-tion cultiva-tion &Dd care of hedges and hedge fences, j The company's main -Iie i in this ?ity. The capital stock is $250,000, with shares of a par value of $100 each. The officers are: W. S. ileCornick, president; Boyd Park, vice president; Freds Simon, secretary, and Ileber J. Grant, treasurer. The life of the company is fifty years. THE TAX CASE HEARD Sutherland On the Illegality of the Increase. J. A, MARSHALL FOR DEFENSE. Judgments F.ntered, Xew Actions Commenced and Suits DismisMed in the Third District Court Today Several Orders Made by Judge Kane Rusiness Disposed of by Jndge Rartch tieneral Court (Cleaning of Interest. The tax injunction suit of W. II. Shearman Shear-man et al. vs. Collector L. G. Hardy, in which the plaintiffs seek to enjoin the defendant de-fendant from collecting the 10 per cent increase in-crease in taxes on real estate ordered by the territorial board of equalization, equaliza-tion, carna up fcr hearing ' before Judge Zaue this morning. County Attorney Murphy stated that he had already appeared in opposition to the increaee, aud as, besides, the territory had the larger interest in-terest in the taxes, he did not deem it proper to appear now on the other side of the case, and John A. Marshall would therefore represent repre-sent the board. Judge Sutherland, of cousel for the plain-titrs, plain-titrs, stated that under the revenue laws of the territory, the county board of equ.liza-tion equ.liza-tion on September 1 completed the assess- j mert roll and it was then placed in the hands of the collector to receive money thereon. The complaint alleged the condition condi-tion of the tax roll and its delivery to the collector. After that, the territorial board of equalization made an order on September 17 making an increase of 10 per cent for territorial taxation on all real estate in the county. At that time the collector had received a considerable amount of the taxes. He surrendered the roll to the county clerk, who later made an increase of 10 per cent on all taxes. The plaintiffs asked for no relief re-lief as to the taxes as originally charged, but asked for an injunction to prevent the collection of the 10 per cent increase. The sole question was as to the validity of the order for the increase. The action of the board was void, further, because it was not taken within the time in which they had the power to act. and which expired when the rolls were turned over to the collector for the collection of the tax. Judge Sutherland also stated that the territorial terri-torial board had nothing to do with the county tax. Its function was to equalize valuation as between the various counties for the territorial taxes only. He also held that the action of the board, vias illegal for want of proper notice to the couuty court, as the representative of the taxpayers, to appear ap-pear and resist the increase. Judge Marshall replied to these arguments at some length, and the matter was taken under advisement by the court. It did not take his honor long to decide that that portion of the county tax levied on the increased valuation was invalid and he so ruled. The entire amount involved, was about $30,000, and thisruling knocks off $10,-000. $10,-000. that being the counties portion on the raise. As to the legality of the territorial tax due on the increased returns, which amounts to about $:20,OO0, that proposition is being argued this afternoon, and besides Judge Sutherland, Mr. Whlttemore and t...va iiM.Mt v. Vw. . . , t ,,w,n ;t tv.. question is a very close one and will, doubtless, doubt-less, be taken under advisement. Court NuUii. In the case of Gertrude Van Anda vs. Frnd Titt et al., the default of F. Titt, M. A. Titt and L. C. Crossman was entered thi3 morning. morn-ing. The case of Sarah K. Cushing vs. T. A, Davis et al. has been dismissed. In the case of L. K Casady vs. M. G. Cochrane et al. the demurrer was this morning morn-ing withdrawn and judgment entered for i the plaintiff as prayed. In the case of W. D. Pavey vs. B. R. Town-drow, Town-drow, default of the plaintiff and a decree of foreclosure were entered this morning. In the case of Alfred Greenbaum vs. M. F. Arnett, judgment has been entered for the plaintiff by default. A motion for a now trial in the caso of G. C. Armstrong vs. tho Oregon Short Line was overruled by Judge Zane this morning. In the case of Helen M. Krigbaum vs. A. J. yielson, the appeal was dismissed today for failure of payment of costs. Judgment has been entered for the plaintiff plaint-iff for $7895 in the case of J. H. Preece and Nephi Preece, executors of the estate of John Preece, deceased, vs. William L. Webb et al. Zion's Savings bank has brought suit against C- L. Seabright and Jennie Sea-bright Sea-bright to foreclose a mortgage for $75(a. In the case of the It. M. Bishop Cigar company com-pany vs. J. H. Clark, default of the defendant defend-ant has been entered. The caso of William G. Davis vs. Samnel C. Sudbury has been dismissed. Clerk Bache has received some valuable books from Maine for the territorial law library. The supreme court meets two weeks from today. The transcript in the cases of Annett vs. Garland and Garland vs. Annett, known as the Bear Lake & River water cases, were forwarded for-warded to tho supreme court of the United States today. Probate Court. The greater portion of Judge Bartch 1 time was occupied today ncar'nrV'JfctA |
