Show DOG IN DAMAGE SUIT I Figures Largely in Case Filed I Yesterday II I I I I PLAINTIFFS ASK 17575 I I llr and Mrs Fred A Smith Filed Suit Against Mr and Mrs H W IHcol Asking Heavy Damages for Injuries Alleged to Havo Becn Kc I coived Through Trouble Over a Pet DogJudge Hall Left Courtroom I During Dispute Between Lawyers The Hilsieit Twins L 1 A 17lF 75 damage null in which a certain small pet dcs cuts considerable considera-ble figure was yesterday instituted in tho Third DIstrlcti court The plaIn tills In the casa areFrcd A Smith and wife and the defendants are K W NIcol and wilt Thc dog appears In the first cause of action It being setout set-out that Mrs Smith on November 9 IDOl had owned the dog for nearly four months It having been presented to her so tho complaInt says by a friend On the same dale In November Novem-ber the complaint goes on to state while Mrs Smith was In delicate health and Mns NIcol by and with the consent and connivance of her husband hus-band wantonly and maJidlously disturbed dis-turbed the peace and qulot of the I I plaintiffs domicile together with their domestic tranquillity and happiness by entering the homo of the plabitlffs and addressing Mrs Smith In a loud boisterous angry and threatening manner thereby endangering her health and happiness and the life oJ herself and her unborn babe to the damage oC the plaintiffs Jn the sum oCr oC-r n f 1 in the second cause of action It Is I set out that on the same date and at the satine time Mra NIcolsaid to Mrs Smith In the hearing of divers persons per-sons You are a liar you are a thief You5t1Io tho dog out of my backyard back-yard In the same connection J tIs alleged ihat these statements were J malicious false und slanderous and that they damaged Mrs Smith and hcr husband the sum of 5000 For a thfrd cause of action It Is alI al-I leged that on tho succeeding day K W NIcol wllih the consent and connivance I con-nivance of his wife and upon her solicitation so-licitation and noqucst took a police I man with him to the home of the plaintiffs and wrongfully forcibly and maliciously entered the house and the I private chamber of Mrs Spnith and without any warrant or authority of I law seized and carried aiyay the pet dog in dispute This action on the part of NIcol the complaint says disturbed dis-turbed the peace and quiet of both 6f the plaintiffs and caused additional mental pain and suffering to their damage In the sum of SaOOO j In conclusion te Is alleged that by reason of the acts of NIcol and his I I wife Mrs Smith became 111 and required I re-quired the attention of n physician together to-gether with attendnnls and nurses and that her husband was caused unnecessary un-necessary loss of t me from his business busi-ness In addition to expending S 75 upon her as a result ofhcr condition It is also alleged that Ihe defendants by their actions have made It necessary for the plaintiffs to employ an attorney attor-ney at a large expense lo pro ecutc an action for the redress of Uielv alleged wrongs and that the total expense of the suit will be 52500 in which add 1 tlonal sum they are dam g1d Their prayer Is accordingly for IT TaM Ta-M Nicol stated last night that the suit was wholly unwarranted Tho dog which he says belonged him had been missing a couple of months and when It was discovered at the Smith home Mrs NIcol went there to get it There were some words he said at the time but no disturbance and while Mrs NIcol did dispute Mrs > Smiths word the term liar woe not used he says The complainants offered of-fered 16 settle the suit for 350 pho says but the offer was refused I I LEGAL CONFLICT Judge Marshall and Col Ellis Indulged In-dulged in Repartee > Judge Thomas Marshall and Col A C Ellis two of the leading members of the Salt Lake bar who have long been noted for their courteous bearing and legal acumen became separated from their Judicial cqulpose for a brief period of lime In the equity division of the Third district court yesterday find the atmosphere became quite hazy I I before they had recovered themselves I I When they finally realized that they were without the bounds of court etiquette eti-quette they discovered that the court had vacated tho bench Then they became be-came sorry and immediately evidenced a dtop yearning to make amends 1 The trouble arose over a disputed Item In the account of the executors in the Aucrbauh estate Col Ellis asked Judge Marshall where the particular par-ticular Item could be found in the report re-port and Judge Marshall replied that he didnt know exactly where it was but that he knew it was correct Col Ellis insisted upon being shown however and finally Judge Marshall made tho suggestion that he was noj a bookkeeper and that If I Col I311IB was particularly anxious concerning the particular Item he could save considerable consider-able time by looking It up himself Col Ellis retaliated by declaring that he objected to being addressed in such a manner and Judge Marshall countered by Inquiring as to what the Colonel was gnlng to do about It Judge Hall had admonished the attorneys In the meantime to cease their dispute and ns there was no bailiff In the court at thc lime and the clerk was also absent his Honor left the bench and went out Into llm corridor where he telephoned to the Sheriffs ofiice for deputy Deputy Dep-uty Sheriff J E Naylor responded at once and Judge Hall then resumed his place upon the bench gave the attpr noys a lecture and ordered them to proceed with the case They did so with alacrity and were soon smiling at each other aa If nothing had hap pened to mar their usual serenity |