OCR Text |
Show Argument on Motion to Appeal FfcvTsTal Court Hears Lawyers in Mining Min-ing Caso, Then Takes Matter Under Advisement. Argument was heard yesterday In the pnlted States Circuit court In this city, l fun J 1 1 Marshall, on a motion made by defendants for tho allowance of an ap-peal ap-peal to the United States Supremo court in the caso of the United States Mining eompartf Leonidaa M. Lawson. "vyu- llnm J. Harvey, Edward Bnlhach. Jv Enos a. Wall, Eleber M. 'eiis, Thomas Kearns, J F. Wells and the lvanhoe Mining Mi-ning company. Judgo Hllcs argued tho niiM)"!! on behalf of tho defendants and Judge w. H Dickson presented the argument argu-ment for the L'nlted States Mining company. com-pany. Appealed From Judge Reiner. Tho decre? in this caso was entered hv Ji.'fi;Tp lohn a. Reiner In favor of def ind-ants ind-ants Match 28, 19M The decret decided all the fncs of the ease In favor of the dr fondants. However, diirlnur the pen-dency pen-dency of tho trial before Judge Reiner, a rmdlon ius niiilo by cotinKol fi . r .lofend-ants .lofend-ants n-sklnf? that the cam? bo submitted to n jury Judge Krlnor falleil to pass on this motion during the trial, but said he would decide the motion at the tlmo he decided tho case. In tho decree which ho i aused to be entered in which the decision was made for tho defendants, ho denied the motion "f defondants for a jury trial i he plaintiff appi all d to the Circuit Court nf Appeals Cor th Eighth circuit from tho .1, cree 80 entered In favor of defondantn, nnd tnnt court reversed tho decree of Judge Reiner nnd decided tho Issues in favor Of the plalntlfl' Appeal to Supreme Court. Judgment on this mandate of the Circuit Court of Appeal was entered In the Circuit Cir-cuit court for tho district of Utah on May 10, 9Vi. iutd now defendants are moving the court to allow an appeal to the l'nlted States Supr mc court from the decision of Judge Reiner mndc on March 23. 1908, refusing re-fusing def.-ndant the richt of trial by J. ry What Judge Hiles Contended. Judge Hlles contended yesterday that the decision of March 23. lf"3. having beSfl in favor of his clients on the facta In tho ise, lie had no Judgment against him and therefore could not appeal; nor could he take a cross-appeal from the Judgment Judg-ment entered on the facts In his favor. He argued that a conHtitvitlon.il question being Involved, ho had n right to appeal directly to the Supreme court of the United States and that the plaintiff, by appealing from Judge Reiner's decision to the Circuit Court of Appeals, could not In that wa deprive defendants from a dl-t. dl-t. i '.ppeal to the United States Supreme court which tho act of Iftfil guaranteed to his clients when a constitutional question Is ln ol ed Further Contentions. Judge-Hlles further argued that, while the Circuit Court of Appeals did attempt to pass on the question as to whether the case was a law case or an equity one. and had decided that matter in favor of the plaintiff yet the question of whether defendants were entitled to a jury trial was not properly before the court, and If the court did attempt to pass upon that question, it was coram non Judlce, Judge Dickson's Argument. Judge Dickson for the plaintiff. COHf tended thai the matter of tho right of trial bv Jury had been adjudicated by tho Circuit Court of Appeal, and further fur-ther argued that the motion for the allowance al-lowance of an appeal to the United States Supreme court should not he allowed, be-. be-. i ise oo exceptions were taken to Judge Rt In. r' decision when he entered tlr- decree de-cree refusing defendants' request for a trial by Jury After listening to arguments of counsel Judge Marshall took the matter under ad taement Mandates Affirming Judgments. The following mandates affirming .Judgments of the United Statep Circuit court for the district of Utah have hecn received from tho l'nlted States Circuit Court of Appeals: In the case of W F. Wll liamson et a! VI Prudence Benrdsley. Tho case of Sam Williamson et aL vs Mary Svhoppe. The Conrad Stanford oompanv vs P. A. H Franklin In the case of Thomas Allen vs. the Diamond Coal and Coke company, the Imlgnu nt r. f the l'tah court was reversed and an order that a new trial be granted was Issued. The case of George R de Groot, trus- i f CharU Sbnettl. bankruDt. s Peter Ponettl, was settled out Of court and was dismissed. |