| OCR Text |
Show Tiniti) nisTiucr loui.T. V Long I lit of Orders Made on lie iiurrcr by luJto anc. The ontlro morning In Judgo ane'a court was (,lvon up lo tho hearlni, of demurrers li complaints nnd auudry Informal matters IntroJ iced by couu eel Tho following orders wiromado up to 1. SO, wheu the usual noou recce was takeu Till! lltOUttAM T 1 Drown v 1 1' Bears it al Motion to strike out answer overruled aud cose may be sot early I eo lo vs Frank Miller, chargid with embeuloniout. Thu motion to quash Indictment, eubmlttud yosler day, was overruled M Dioniai v I oreais Williams it al Motion to rotax and disallow over ruled and an exce lion taken Geo W i'rlnco vs Oreut Halt Lake V Hot H ring Hy Co Demurrer, to complaint ovirruled, ten da a to 'an ewer W H. McCurnlok vs. It Karatofsky et al Motion allowed and Judgment vacated Case dismissed II W. I awruncu receiver of the late corporation of tho Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Balut vs I A Mitchell Default aud Judgment In two ca s Wm Keytlugvs It T llurton, Jr Willi lrawu, tinduya to answer h Holluian 1 1 al vs thu Old Jordan MluligCo Ten da U uineiid al lowed Ion's Having Hank vs (J I. Hea bright et al Default Dacrou of foro closure, $101 nttornty's fee allowid Mary A Hamilton I vs Wic Hnm raoud Motion for allowuneo of nllmouy nnd for Injunollou Tho In Junction was grautod andlhecaiu set lor trial on Thursday John O H nllli it al vs A r Hlpjurly ct ul Motion uf lutervun tlon overruled 1 toeitlon taken Amos 11 h lleldlngvs Ludrand ouug, truslcu, it nl Ion's Huvlngs Hfiuk as defiudant with druw demurrir ant took twenty days to answer Demurrer of tho other defendants overrule 1 nnd twunty days to auini r Ii C Hamilton vs (J W. Hmllh Dimurror lo cuuplaiiit overrul d, lloduytouniwir Dedrioli v the Halt I ake City railway comp inj, ten days additional time granted lu nil vi r Husiu Williams vs tlio Utah Htei n I auudry com any Demurrer with drawn, ten days u iius.fi r llaruhrd llros vs duties H Jsicli ol ut al Demurrir to siplomiulil comUlut overruled, ten days to answer lly M Irestonvs C M I ued Demurrer) to com lalnt ronfrssuJ, twent days ullnni 1 luitmend Kansas Cll Hat Iwaru oamt any vs James Mi lsou Mutlo 1 of lefindnl t for a tew tilal eubmlttud, llireu daa allowed to lllo nmondei bill of excel lions Jainoa W. Lardley et ul vs A J Hmltli otnl Motion for anew trial overruled William Cooper vs tho D ft It CI W lly Co Demurrer ti complaint withdrawn II W J uller vs I W Senior et al Motion lo strike out iioltloti of com plaint overruled Trunau O Angell itnl vs I rank II Hteihoosetel Demurrir lucrori complaint sustained l.xccl lion II. W Walson et al vs tho Utah lSursery company Domurrer to com I laint sustained, lou days to amo d Henry Wilson va Hehretaand D)n Mo Ion lo sot aside report nt tho ref erce(Judgo Anderson) nnd motion as to confirmation nf report sustaining tho demurrer Overruled a to the latter, twenty day allowed to anunj comi lalnt This Is thocaioln which tho i Inlntlfr, n colored man, brought suit against 111" defendants who aro restairant iroprlotora of this city, for reluslng lo servo lilm with n meal whiniequtstel Calvin J Fosiet al v Husinnah ltoundy ct al Motion to set aside order ol referenco overruled Arthur Meads vs Jas Thompson ct al It port of relereo overruling mo tlon for ii new trial filed and Judzinent entered for the lalnlllTou tho original repott limjIIF JUDUK IIAItlllf Ju lgu Kartell a time this morning was occu) led with the further hearing of tl ocasonf Janus M (lareyetal vs. ths York Mining company It arlti out of thu ncllon of Iho directors ol Iho com) ai y named In lev) Ing an assie-inentofl) assie-inentofl) cents mr share on all stock I eld tytholiareholder on At rll .'I, 183. lJalnlllfaallcgi that thu n siss merit was Illegal Uu tho grounds that a msjurlt) of tho stock was not re rcaetited at tho tlmu the asseaemon! was levied, aud for thu further reason that It I ad bien aitricd betwo n tho stockholdurs that no asnossmeiit slioul I I levied until tint SO 000 share of treasury stock ha I been dlsiocd of. |
