Show ALLEN WINS THE COUNTY CLERKSHIP salt lake school election case argued and submitted other cases the case of the salt lake board of education vs the utah commission came up for argument in the supreme court yesterday morning sutherland judd appearing for the plaintiff and baldwin and for the defendent judge sutherland opened the argument by saying that in order to purchase school sites etc the board of education had decided to issue of school bonds and the proposition was to be submitted to the vote of the people the onla question in the case was as to whether the commission should control that election and this suit in which a writ of prohibition restraining the commission from interfering in the election was asked for was brought as a matter of business only in order that the question as to who should control might be definitely determined in order that the bonds might be issued in strict accordance cor dance with law so that they would go upon the market without a shadow of doubt as to their validity judge sutherland jj then read the school law and the edmunds tucker act the act of congress gave the territory the power to issue bonds and the legislature had defined the conditions which should govern the issue of bonds he thought the statute should be declared to be in force judge sutherland argued that the election was not such a one as was mentioned in the edmunds tucker act and the commission therefore had no right to control it and it should be held as provided in the statute mr baldwin and mr argued the matter at considerable length for the defendant and it was then taken under in the matter of the estate of thomas and george H cope involving th right of polygamous children to inherit judge sutherland called attention to the fact that the judgment of the territorial supreme court had been reversed by the supreme court of the united states and he asked that the decision be recorded and the cause remanded to the district court which was done frank W wheeler of illinois was admitted to practice on motion of judge sutherland in the afternoon chief justice zane announced that in the case of ferguson vs alien involving the title of the office of county clerk the decree ot ahe court below was affirmed and the opinion would be filed in a few days the decision of the district coart it will be remembered was in favor of mr alien in the case of milando pratt et al vs walter I 1 clawson etal judge anderson the opinion of the court in this action the plaintiffs sned to recover alleged to be due them as commission on a real estate transaction the third district court gave judic ment for the plaintiffs for the amount and the supreme court sustains the judgement Jud gement of the court below stephens and schroeder were the attorneys for the plaintiffs while 3 H moyle aad E B gritchlow represented the defendants fend ants in the case of brigham stowell et al vs joseph johnsonel John al jude blackburn delivered the opening the case involved the ownership owner shio of a portion of the water of waterfall canyon creek and spring canyon creek in weber county the court below found in favor 0 the plaintiff and the supreme court affirmed that judgment in the case of herbert bate et al vs american fork city et al involving the judgment of the court below in favor of the plaintiffs was affirmed in the case of E B avers etal vs mary ann jack involving the title to certain real detate in this chiy the decree of the court below in favor of the defendant was affirmed in the case of F R alien vs the union pacific JR ailway company chief Justice Zane delivered the opinion odthe court this suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover damages for the killing ot five horses the court below gave judgment for ahe plaintiff which WAS confirmed by the supreme court all tee judges concurring in the case of G 0 harkness efa al vs charles woodmansee et al involving atie title to a strip f land in ogden peed as a roadway the judgment of the court below in favor of the defendant was affirmed in the case of willard city vs thomas woodland the judgment of th court below was no opinion being filed adjourned until this morning at p |