| Show tHE SILYEH lONG WINS Supremo Court Decision tn the Case of S C Ewing vs David Keith THE ELDORADO PFOPERTY INVOLVED I + L 01 b1 ll I IIlth lop un t Abolulo nlo U n nr 1 The tuMcmo Cull delivered nn opinion opin-ion todaj 111 fid e of Maim Cling C-ling and Leonora lowing nppcllii n hl f i against David Krlth ami the 1 Bhr King mining oomianj nfflunlnz Ihe I decrte of the lower court A statement of the cac shows that In Juij lisa funnicl U ivlrs nnillMicd to George Ctilllns I In trurt foi nil his I creditors all of his prortttj amons vhlch was the Hldorado I mining claim 1 Ine In the m antlmo I settled with all t of 1 i hi unprorrr1 creditors oMnlnid the lulllns and the picftricd ft 1 execute I a < iut clilm fi He Eldora10 claim tn Dntd Ki Ith the islleratlc being 1 l0i0 1 Keith at I the tlm oC the nol nmnt wn un 01 t the preferred ciedllois nnd held Kw litH note for 51000 Upon > thu resign incut of the Kldoiado to Keith I he Indorsed t yt dorsed the note us fully paid and turned j It over to Culllns Uwlng At that i time Uwlnj and his wife Joined In i j d l 03 gmntorH conveying lo Keith i all the right and Interest In the IJIIor I ado clallll tho conltIrolln nHlllcJ In Uccembei 18i Keith nnd his wlto convol < 1 the Eldorado claim 10 Ihe Silver King Mining company Keith in the meantime however obtained tltlj to the remaining 2lSths of the propel 1 ty Keith ut thin time nas inrsldent und director of the fclhcr King com I In y October 1896 action was com mencd by Ilwlng and l his wife to havi il the dd set usldi and declared to bi n i mortgage only for the tl 1000 note Keith clilrmd It was a deed absolute rtio Culllns said he also thought It to be such ffl The case wes tried I before Judg < llllos last 1 July who adjudged nJ de oI need the Silver King Mining company tho own nnd lawrul 105leor or tho whole oC Ihe Eldorado lode mining tllm whn n appool wu taken The question left for the Huprme oourt 0 detprmlne WM whtor the i deed to Keith was Iwn 01101 Intendel g II ecnrily ror the 1000 or n nbso i lo The court a finds that tho < entire bur i den oC looC w thrown upon Hwlng to eiUblli hi cIlm and whn the tllmony or Keith and Culllns nre taken Into consideration It nnds l Iteclf IrroslstaWy led to the conclusion that the evidence Introduced by Kwlng fell far hort of establishing th < > convlcllon I h that the deed was only Intended n mortgage iho law ia > s Juollco I Miner who delivered the opinion never Impllei a trust and the court never presumes a trust except In l rasits Continuing I the 1 lays snYIA 11 general rule hen It I pro I pOfed to et asld nnnul or oorrt n wrlttn Intrumnt Cor rraud or mi I tnke In tt secutlor Ihe bllrden t upon the molng paine to vecom e pai-ne presumption ntislng from the terms of the written Instrument by II ntietr 4 clear unequivocal convincing I testimony testi-mony and if there Is I n failure to over cnme thl prumptlon 1 > 1 tellmony clear plain and convincing beyond any reasonable controversy the written Instrument In-strument will he held to express tin Intention of the parties The deed In question fpenks ns ni absolute comejance When It was de llvered thfr note was surrendered to the assignee and marked paid over tin signature cf Mr Keith endorsed there The raoo or Chmber Emel U Utah 374 Is I quoted which nmoni other things sajs If It were onci IF established that the effect of the term J oC a wrlttn Intrumnt coul1 h nyolJ eJ I > n bre relondmnre oC pnrol evjflencfr tho gates to perjury woulc ROon I Aide opn nnd no on tieuld l longer rest In ecurlt ot hi tI f tie to prolert howewT olemn might he the Intrumn on which It Is 1 < tounded At the trial It wa ollorrd to pro that Jlwlng had gone to his attornejn ro Inrornmllon nl ho1 101 he h1 so much l faith In Keith that ho coulil take his word without A wilttili agreement Judge lilies declined to allow this togo to-go In because Kfllh was not present Thlch n nlled a orrnr < lIner hnhl tht the inlc laid 1 1 ilown by tho Kupicine inurt In the ruse of silver VK licKiird 10 l the lorrpet one and that Iho testimony offered l was properly rejected ami anirms tho judg ment or the lower ollurt Chlof Tustlco Hane and Justice Ilartch concur In the decision Two An Inrormntlon eharlng Ihe ome what nolnrlou James T Monk with the public offenko t furgeiy WM Illed In tlu > Third dIMrlct couit today It Is alleged In the douiment that Monk In Ortolci isno nhlln ncorder of Ihe IliK fottonwood Jtlnlng dlstrrt did wilfully irter the ipcord containing Ih notlo or loontlon or the Inxnpl Mining npanj llh Intent to e fraud Another Information charging Atct nnder Oornn with th < trim of burg was nl 10 ntid todn > The offense as U I leged consists of hl having broken Into the lender ClKaf factor nt 61 Commrrlul ntrect nn the night ot Jan llady Hth IMS nnd steillnc 700 clrnrs valmd at JI3 1 the propelly of Nicholas Schmleder Dritrllan l > AllMirl Mary r llace nled l a suit for divorce ngollt Fred I Hace In the Thlril dls trie court today nllritlng that they wre mrrled on the 2ZM C UOfUt 18 alltl thnt n year alln the Jer < II < allt dart < I her Ilnlntlrr in addition to a decree > nja for th custody of a one sear old child and that she IIP restored lo her mallen name Inry t Jone Powen Stiaup Ilppmin arc Mrs Italo attol n ccr nll Thoma W 1Ir110 hn been made defendant de-fendant In a suit for divorce brought by hli wire Kmllj T HarrK who In her cnmphnl 11 doerllon on the Iort nC her huIn < 1 Th arrlnge Is I alleged to have taken Ilaco In thl clt Iarch II 5w4nn5YnV > tobcr 193 the I defendant Is accused of abandoning his Iro IIntl home Nellie M Hattorfleld has entered suit Hlnst Alfred C Trudeail et nl I In the Third district en uJrr o rot II promloy nole oeur1 bj mort i ne The three branches of the Third dls trlet court were Idle toclnj Judge lies Is In Ogden Judge Cherr Is I In Doele while Judge Norrell Is I holding cuurt at Coal vIII |
