Show JOHN WALL WINS HIS SUIT supreme Court Dcclilm In I i Wlrlllin CoMic Cut jairanlens 6 Lower 10 are Aftirrated Ir thba 4 vihkl Divorce Sets I The SUm court this afternoon In t I bn opinion luind d down umrmttl the handt linwrilTuffirtnaull Judgment uf the 11 oiurl In I the au of John Ivan VI tin Niagara Mining anl Hmalllnit Unniwny of Idaho ap patient UlITh The plaintiff brovihl lull In recover 13 ouo alleged to bf due upon a contract The coon well trio Ufr Judge hny an I n jury and a vmici WAS returned I ill faur of plaintiff The question for review wag whether 1ponnNTIrs or persons wNs colt Imp Im-p realitme a Company can I = 1111tral u which will I land It fUr II i b I > om > a n legal 1 rnlll I Counsel for appellant I nlendJ tin ft on ITS I land for a JwtII1 be I it Iou art Actual eotitttu is not enfmmailo be or against II Till con Isn4lon 1 th oourl hI in I to > brood onI eye th legitimate Sequence ot I lie Would Caw I that a i irpumtlon upon full and complet rianlutlon uiulir it j Ihe Pistols might anept and adopt 111h a onlrocl rorli 1 a und retain Iho Italian thereof and al Ihe same time CA abaolved from In burden The opinion further may n e hav no a m palhy wllh a doctrlm that woull Ira I lo uih miullo thai might In employed aa an Instrument of frau I and Inluitle to I the unwary Chief Joel HartOi wrote III opln I Ion J Juillc Miner and Juitlov llaikln cotwurrod linN I Wii lUI it IT Jury Itetun a 111141 i In Valor of Me II4 OHM iy The Cambe or Ilarjartfile Itaun vo the 1 into Irande 1 tr nanway company Was submitted to lie Jury last evening with Instruction front the mutt to hand In a Muled Verdict this morning This was done 4 Rd when I Ihe envelope was opened today II was found to c In tat o a rdlrt in I favor of the defendant company companyiiniiir ThcT plaintiff sued to moyr III MO ai tfAmaj far the dealll of her hue bund elinfl no wit 6 kifld if tell h 119 struck and I DO i I nM kill0 by or of the dfdatt I TI kr plto T 1 hit I it t I f a b ar 14 if k at Mullay Math tulh UJ9 Ih 114 ni iliaded r nitri but IT w gl 11 I IT I 1 at4 that no 31o a Tommie mett ration Ilan attor a fr it I I a Cuj dV11 1 4 ant 1 Offered III make a riarripromism with h plaintiff by agreeing to pay her SIX In full aelllment nf her claim t IN offer It ll I amid I was declined 1 J uti cii > mvitif imuncK HIT After Thr a of ill 14 1 lAto al 1L life Alit I ke llle eil Mary XI Chadwlck nud a suit for dl ore against Abraham Chidolrk Jr In I tbe Third dlitncl court today al 1 eglng Cruelly 1 awl failure lo provide aa the ground The oomplauit allege hat the marrlaz took pile at Ogden o n December II 1IU and that there was loom lo them during their nur led life twelve children threo of whom have dle1 II u I further eJllie1 that defendant Is the owner of a ham stood and ue bmtoo 01 Awl 11 ItUlor county valuoll at more than Knolls real I anl nal propert In this City of the 7rialwa rperty 1 V u If IM farm inalblivary I t I Ie and liorie 11 of the value of II 14mi and i oou lie I of hep slow In I IniHder of about the value nt I1OW 1 lalnllff aleo 1 allege that In I 1IM ilm ell heir lo ll l which wllh the I ti d t1 P II ton of I defendant Involuted In end Improved lb e imnira and Other > nnrty and that iho now 14 without unda for her an1 children Support Mfendanl II is I alleged dieorted plain Iff a year ago awl han tine iII la i-II am rt from hit wife Th defendant to I ttlw 1 Refused of treating plaintiff in I it cruel I and Inh man manner it the 0010 as Mulo her great mental dlitreia and bodily inJury in-Jury What the cruel treatment con UUI 1 of la not Pot out Plaintiff prayi for a dissolution of the marriage llei th ruitoty 0 three manor man-or children a dlvlilon nf the Ikiiel ler counly properly the bullltngi Jut house rr1 furniture In this i city ami IIWI < 1 for plalnlirfa iiippon ponllng divitors at the properly Mi le I thattlia fondant be restrained from disposing or or ncumbrD the property and other relief AITICAL CAr iistaxissstip Allies at Map A c at IS Co of Us drd Laiulry to note no Charming Court has dellvire an nflnlun In I the UUM or th standard Hleam Laundry appellant TO C A Data dlemlnlng Ih o aplant l Action was brought In the oai tar the purpo of rejeomlng certain premli rl inJ 111 pu2now i old at a firecloure Ml also for an ay < xintrng Judge Illle gave Jude almost for an avoiHinllng but nrt So counting WAS had at that firm and no Judgment for any particular or notation amount was reftrod The Iftundry so 10 < 1 1 IJ 0 > 1 < 0 moved for do = Conrad mlaaal on the mraund that the Judgment rendered by Judge Illlea I waa not a final but only 1 an Interlocutory order and furthermore that the brief of appellant ap-pellant wm not sables bum iJJj Huprm r lo Court sustained both ohjrttloni Th opinion WAS fast rurlam |