Show 11 T I i i I 1 I BAD FOIl r DAI i IAGr 1 SUITS t I I If t2 1 1 W7 e j I 01 1 9 44 Two More of Them Fail In the Courts i I f I I I I I Today I I t T 4k I 4 4 1 I A i C I J I J I I I I SALT LAKE CITY ANDR G W EACH WIN I 1 1 I 1 I i I i I I I 11 filed motley u lft < a IJIiorc Juilg Che t I Jl t tryS Health li I > rulngrlle ol I 7 Lrliulual anil Oilier Mullen I i It I 1r ill 1 il-l I r Today lIS Another chilly OM for I I 1 plaintiffs In I 1 dllnage milts Followlull l I dose upon une yesterday In which a 1 I I 1 verdict was given for the defendant I V1 I f and two others In which the Supreme 1 y 1 I j Court reversed the finding of tile court I I 11 i I below today has a record of one reversal It re-versal of a 1 damage suit In which ant i an-t award Area made fur Injuries and o JoT i M f i 1 I case therein the plaintiff received an I I I I I P 9 I adverse verdict i concluded The last named case was i I 1 before Judge lilies today It was the J r suit of Wm A Brown of Bountiful r 0 Davis I county against Bait Lake city f for 20 000 damages for Injuries re 1 L I 11 11 I a cehed Ili 1 ail accident that occurred I of the Warin Springs In April I 4i north i 1 I A i itt i I i rIWhlnoh negligence man charged I I 1 fllf On > the part uC the IllY In nol properly 11 I protecting a high mbonkmnl In that I Frcotectlng I 10cn1l1Y r W Th tY closing arguments to the Jury i I I t were mad today Judge Powers ending I J ltl with an Impassioned I apical to give the i tl I 11 I plaintiff substantial damages for per 11 0 J i moment Injuries Inflicted a The Jury retired nnd In half nn i It 1 I hour rturnod I with a verdict In favor 1 I 11 t I I 0 > f Salt Lake City corllOrntion thus I tli 1 0 holding that Ae municipality hid not 01 y P been guilty of ngllgnce 1 11 Fifteen days time was aIlOd Plain A tiff In which to make < n Motion for a 1 I I f lIl new trial I 5 1 I f I I I e 1 Another IlatrUg Itlerlit f i It t I The Supreme Court handed down anD I I ie an-D 1 opinion In I Another damage Came today I V I In which thu Ilia Grande Weptern Itall 11t Pt f I d way company wan defendant and I3va III g 41 I it It 1 sued M Campbell the railway plaintiff company Mrs fop Campbell dam r 11 g I age In having Wiled hr husband 11 T 3 alcolmM i Campbell The accident I I I I 11 j Allitch caused llr CaMphells death n h I VA i occurred in Emery county and the suit j 0 i i I ii J 4 i for damages was brought at the home I tl I J I H I of the deceased In the district court Core I I Cor-e I Weber county The railway company ft I 1 t 1 t f objected to the Jurisdiction ot that I 31 1 4 t I court and on the objection being over e t Al till i I V jl ruled The Supreme appealed court from that says ruling that the district I it I t I dis-trict court erred In assuming Jurisdiction I 1 I I V I I Jurisdic-tion coCu1h case The Judgment Is I A I therefore reversed and the court below I i I F r 13 k Is I ordered to dismissal the action 1 I The opinion In this case Is I by Justice 2l I hlb It n i i it tj I 1 i nartch Chief Justice Zane and Justice 1 Pt Miner concurring It I I 11 19 I Criminal Court blotter i il f I XfJ In the criminal branch of the Third i I YJ1 t district court today Judge Norrell presiding 11 I A A i j pre-siding the ease of the srtite vs AlUrt I I Cbng I t Checton et ill accused of burglar was k I ntlnued I for the term t I I f fik1 COr tube case of the State V3 A M I t I I rilmore accused of grand larceny n 1 N Btraup was appointed by the court 15 t 1 to defend the prisoner I t tllm State of Utah vs Frank Lyons In il 1 1 hr which the UJf n trI In accused of 1 4 i tr-I IL I I grand larceny Fred McGurrln was 1 I t j L I appointed by the court as attorney to 1 T conduct the came for the der ell dant All 1I I it net Tivre > > 0r I r I jl if The divorce else i oC 311nnie J Aloe I ttt ley against Fralik Morley I came up in 11 t goi ra k pf i 1 4 court today lire Morley asked for a decree dissolving the marital bonds A 1 t rlolsnj A between herself and husband She al il t f no asked for the custody ot a minor child Effle Morley She testified that her husband had failed to provide for li i 1 1 hr support and on the showing made I t I J I the court granted a decree of divorce i giving the child Into the custody of the it f r I i mother j1 k < 1 1 I I r j I Stttg or Law Coops H I J I 1 J tarn Third district court bloitjr I con i 1i n I I I WAN the announcement that on Sister 1 11 l t 1 i day March 5 Judge Cherry will make II 0 141 A Netting Of law LAReS for Will divi Ii T Plans ct the court I and r2 trldlg to J I l1 commence March 8 and running tu rl j lit i i I i March 80 iJi1 1 ilI 1 f f I AV j i 1 Court Ceilings I i1i Judge Cherry is I improving In health it 1 it I i it but shown traces of having bh jol 1 Orely dealt lib by an attack of i I 7i l I I r I tho grippe I > a In the call P of Oollllh Wmmlek VR I John lieck IJ i II Crltrhlow has withdrawn 1 t with-drawn as attorney for defendant J UjO I 1 The prut Jurors In the Third district call irt have been excused from ervlce until Monday next The case of John T Wilson et al is Lltzlo A Smith ct al for Judgment on = cnimon certain mortgages nnd deeds was heard today by Judge lilies W L Hannlng et ftl vs Kureka Chemical Mining Col plaintiffs allowed 111I I March 5 tn controvert answer of Gde Pills Co The ull of fored 1Ourrln va i J It lIIar alLobeeln continued for ilia Inm |