| Show m must pay SUIT brought by gabriel hunts man verdict for holbrook and dains TUESDAY the evidence in the jungk fabian va aeed cropper et al caad was all in at the close ot the afternoon session rne the jury wae excused till and judge smith heard arguments of counsel on the question of reed croppers right to take advantage advant aee of the fraud perpetrated upon them by the knowledge of the existing between junak fabian and scott bein withheld from them the court finally decided that this was no defense BO far as heed cropper were contained conca ined because they had perpetrated a similar fraud upon jungk fabian by withholding from them knowledge of the partnership ex between reed and cropper and scott toe liability of holbrook and dughins Du geins the sureties upon the promissory notes will depend upon their knowledge of the fact that scott was a partner of both the firm of reed cropper aud the firm of jungk fabian at the time the notes were signed holbrook and deegins testified on the trial that they did not know of this they were corroborated by Cropp erand were not contradicted an evening session was held in which counsel argued the case beaura the jury aa to holbrook Holh rook an laxina Ua xina the cage of the territory of utah va A 0 smoot jr was continued bior tle term the case of LE vs A A noon et al was set for february wednesdays when court opened this morning judge smith charged the jury in the fabian va reed cropper et al case they were to find a verdict the defendants reed and grouper for the amount surd for less any amount eliat may be dua them on a counterclaim against fabian for the use of the As to the defendants holbrook and unpins they wera guarantors guaran tors in the original contract it is alleged that thea the notes as sureties but that they received avalne valne which aliey deny if they received value they would be liable but it they received no avalne valne they would not ba liable by reason of beine interested in tha transaction it they the notes aa a contin nation of their guarantee open the original contracts and they had received no benefits from the original contract then they would not he liable on the notes any further than upon the origin al contract then it must be considered if they anaw ofine of scott in both firms if they kner of this they are liable as sureties it they did not they are not liable and tha verdict should b in theia favor A jury was called in the case of the dwight paper co ys mcewan se co the bring suit for a bill for paper alleged to be sold to mcewan A co and which waa refused by defendant on the ground that it was not euch paper aa they bought H C edwards ia attorney for plaintiff and I 1 W kenward represents mcewan fc co the case was continued for the term aa there were not enough jurors to fill the panel and plaintiffs preferred not to go to trial with less than twelve jurors the next case called was grabriel huntman etal vs the union pacific railway co the suit ia brought to recover damaged for injuries alleged to have been Bub stained by eunice huntsman on account of a detect in the track where bya car ia which she wa was thrown over an embankment the accident occurred between juab and time time baat kins houtz are counsel for plaintiff and sutherland and thurman appear for the defendant corporation corpora tian the jury in the jungk fabian TS reed cropper and and case came in at 2 and rendered a verdict in favor of Hulo rook and deegins Du egins aad against the defendants reed and crupper and assess the plaintiffs damages at |
