Show TilE SUPREME COURT in Appeal By the Salt Lake Ripld Transit Company Jl THE IUI1V DAMtllC SUIT rite Imarincfl Coinpanlr and 1 Tlitlr Cuitonim The ornich Union Later a 1rolril This bar been another light day In the Territorial Huprrme court There i were no opinion lotlhcouilnidaDj only IffocaMiforargumiut lilt L11OAU ifAns Atmii Tin first cue up was Ibat 01 Julian llllii plalullQ and respondent rrptt Judge llendereon the i nle < l by TI iIt Lake UipM Tranill eimipny do eidauli and appellant for whom lode Marihall appeared Allnl from TlllrJ dllrltl Judge ur Itiley brought mil In the court be uw to recover 110000 damages for lie iiialh ol lili 7ycaroM ton alleged la have LUll caused by the negligence of the defendant company enifloyM The preent appeal It irons the lute Ii silent In plalntl favor lor I ttuim i and from the Cruet overruling a rueliou lee a new trial On Juno llth I50J Illleyi elilM WH about to oroM the roadway ou J uurtli tioulli heel tint It junolloii with Hrconil Lest when no was kmickeJ down by a laming car and lnlantlykllloJ It li 1 alleged that their the-ir woe running at a much greater medthan that limited hjr the orlllu nncrtht no bell was rounded nor other wruing Ktvtn cud this It the null gene attributed I On the other baud the delemlunt deny all thin and aver contributory negligence un the part of the plaint irA ir-A Hill ISBUIIANCr OlH AlItUIu There won ouly one oilier cam down for argument lojay 1crry C West plalntitl and ripondtnl vi the Norwich Nor-wich Union Klin Inniuanca locloty difendaul and appellant Aalfrom Kourlli i ulittlcl JuJje Miner lvaur and llgere and A U Horn for the oJlollal C 11 TAIII cud OI I Ijrnuard forth reeponJeut ritlullll rebiiirr IHUiHtOtdcr InurN certain preinltei on tlriut Avenue with the duendanle for Stir sum uf JSitOi On Mircli 21il the in ue mud its contend wore destroyed it i flri but upon WMI 1 pulling In nil 4OiM claim them WM no eallfaolory Moutr In their uniMtrtliedeleu Grin entered an aliuotl general duulol to hue allegation Ml tooth In ihu implMnl and allege that In violation ill the lax ol the t llcy the building question aloud upon leased ground that Ihu liernoiul ellcli wltnlu the ilwrlllng Were uiilliely voTerod bj > a ctaatttl mortgage unit that plalntlll oonctilvd them 1auita Dom the caddy whereby the policy btctmo Told lfi WA 10 oontonJed that < l > lntlll lot > lo-t d the teiiu ol the lglloy by Iniuf log In anolbrt OOOlIan permUilau lor which wai not liniorml oU the policy luuod by Ihu Norwich rue jury on the trial found for the plalntltl aixMliiK the daniaiet at tlOOU and ttTU com From this judKiueiil and sue couil order overruling over-ruling a ruction lor a cow trial tUli client 1 U taken |