| Show IH I i e A 1 IN EmIS i I S OF JUSTICE I i M I 111 a I I I r a Tli I tr ef 1 l 1 Supreme Court Passes Upon Cases Appealed 1 I I I 11011 f 6 1 I I 1 4 It I I r Thereto I = 1 11 I I I lb i 11 I I r I I i I U M SCOTT ASSIGNMENT ARGUMENTS Ii bl II Iii I t I I I ltl JleI Wk to all luI Is May be 11 1 4 1 1 7 1 lowed by a fluab After Peter I K J I 1 day Nut I t4 I The Supreme court arled the record I r I fl I I < today In rendering nn opinion In uhlcli 1 the decision of the court below wan aft to t t I I1 pl I firmed the judge fortunate enough to I I I I i I 1 e Iw the only one upheld In more than A r I i I half a dozen appeal cones patted on the I C t Ie pact tliVrc Oajs being JUdge A N I ooo 1 I Cherry 1 i W The rate was that of May H linn i va Charles 11 Jlarkluid In April Itil 41 li I 1 I Wm A rralley Sydney a rrulley I I i riun Ici I It all i I lllphard Oundry Mary Oundry and C 11 I J 11 I I 11 n Markland made n contract by uhlch P I I the llulllon No 3 mining claim In I Rush i I 1 11 11 1 I Valley mining I district I Tootle county I I r woo to be purchased by Markland from iJo l j I J I the other persons named The mine I WM to be COnVeyed to Iarkham Ire I o I I of all calms except a mortgage Hen J1 ip and certain claims of persons for labor fr I performed not to exceed the sum of h fi f h Rij 0 12100 Among the claims was one by fi 11 4 1 Mrs Drown for S3OT which Markland It 111I 111 I tiI claimed I I was not Included but Mrs I Ilronn asserted was Included and was I assumed by Malkland The contract I I It yTi wo is not clear on thl8 point and the V district court admitted I parole evidence I I It A1 to how that Marklan l had assumed to the debt Upon this the fl a proof jury I 1 Il I I a tol 1 I gave a verdlcl I for Mrs Brown An It I appeal was taken alleging as error tile I j V h e Admission of parole evidence to ex I I = a I I Main the contract Upon this point 1 the Supreme court 1 says I I I I ° Where the terma employed In B I a wrlU1I eonlrt are clear and l un l 1 equivalent Import what the legal obligation i I ob-ligation Is I aol are not uncertain an II V to the object and Intent of the eon i I t tract parole evidence not collarless Z 0 I 1 Me to controvert them but hner I 1 r the terms nre susceptible of moro than r on Interpretation or a latent ambl i Bully arises < r tho extent and object r I I l I of the ntraet cannot be ascertained f I I I I I from the language employed parole evidence may be Introduced to sho > I I j4 1 what ms In the minds of the parties I I at thellime at making the contract x1l i t I and to determine the otijert on < hleh I It was designed to operate j Upon this point which Is I the vital t 1 1 I one In tho case as appealed I tho Sub Su-b h l Preme court holds that the district I d court committed error Thre was some I I other evidence Improperly I omltte but A I 1 Its i hearing woo not suiiicient lo chang < 11 1 14 the result The < decision of Ito lone court Is I therefor nlllnnd The opinion woo written by Justice I 1 f Bartch and na concurred In by the 1 It other members of the Supreme court I Nil I N-il 11 The Scott AMlfiunont I I 1 li6 Judge lilies was faced by a largo l I A array of legal talent today In the pro I II I It e Calrlggx to set aside the assignment of I I Oioree M Scott Co which Is being 1 P attacked on the ground of fraud b > 11 Kl the TraOlr neurotics company f it I Wlla Fargo Co and the National ill f n Bank of the Hepublle each of hlen f I f I inatitutiins Is I n creditor onho aolgnor M L and seeks to have some other arrange I I merit for getting a portion of Its claim 1k 11 than that provided In the da of no 14 I Ignmenl Evidence In the case had I I IlI been ubmltta ana today leading at or ki A I torney on either Side were Pouring f I 1t oratory and legal lore Into the courts I ear with all the eloquence am d argu I Rn mentatlv force al their cam man d 11 Arguments were finished at 4 i clock tills afternoon ulien the rae I 1 was taken under advisement 4 j I I I I V Reversals by Palomino Court X I The Supreme court has handed clown 1 1 t an opinion In the case of the Sixteenth I ol oehool district of Davis county va the f Davis county board of commissioner 0 11 t upon a matter pacnad 1 upon by Judge I t Vj t Itolapp In tho district court Th nil In I I ing of tM district court was that the I I I rounty commissioner aid not have the 41 v i I authority to i change the boundaries too I k 11 twern the eighth unit sixteenth school t districts In Davis county except upon the recommendation of the county au i I I f perlntfndent of schools or on a Petition I 1 t trom the rIrInla of lelarh1 terri ton The Supreme court holds that 1 1 if 4 = = they db he ouch uthprltj tahl to coldlnsly rover me Judgment 01 the district court The opinion nan by Chief Justice Zane Or tired In by Justices lIartch and Miner The JUdgment of the lowor ourt waR also reversed In thocase of John Smith appellant va the North Canvon Water company tried l before Judge Itolaiip The action was brought by Smith In 1 the lower court to QUIt the title to 13H 212tlis of North Canon creek in DaVIS county with damage In the sum nf 2000 for the aliened wrongful withholding feflou holding of the water for a period of four months prior to the Institution of the suit In September 1896 The lower court found that Smith was only entitled en-titled t to 3Iths of the stream ns ad rallied by the company and judgment was entered acordlngly The Supreme court however I lokl at the mallrr In n different light and remands the came with directions to the lovier Court In Brole the drrre and enter a err In 1 favor of the plaintiff for 10212ths of the writer ulth damages In the mum of 3200 Tile pinion Is written by Justice Miner op4ninn J v still Coo entrold In toy Clitet Justice Zane and JUII < e JJar t ch Not jroly No w The slump In legal business this week caused two of le dletrlct cnurt room to be cloned today the divisions of both Judge Cherry and Judge Nor r1I helnlt wropt In dealt ralrn On Saturday however there tvlll tie a setting of civil cases 10 cover the rest of the month so that the prospect ll I good for the judges having nil they can attend to for morale weeks to come Coot Culling The mining contest ease Of Mary D Smith a liernY Newell 1 ham been taken under edirlsement by JtIdKe I Iarhall In the United Stoics district court A judgment of KOO has been entered In the Vaulted States dlitrlU court against Swen O NIIon and C O Peterson for lllgnl cutting of timber vn the public land There Is I nol much criminal business In I the courts now but the olllme oC civil casen roolIlre Several of Hherllt Lewis deputies all their time In erIn er-In papers Counting In ourt bailiffs 1 Sherlft Lewis has fifteen mn on the pay roll or his olllce The Younrs hotel has been taken pSneslon of by the hrUt under two I bitter Mortgages ggrpgallng IOM In favor of the Utah National bank The ese of Affect Dickert vo Frdl nand Dlrkrt ham hen continued for two months 10 allow time to get ver t tin documents from Germany loIldolVlek P Crofoot reor of the Omolon Fire Insurance mo npnny ham filed an action against looa Thatcher and S T Josielyn to recvver 1 t2 u o > nl Isteeitabeclueupon twntln short tit the company Meek for which Mr Thatcher subscrlhwl In 1189 The par value nf the stock was 12600 and one half of the amount wa paid In cash Mr Thatrher then gave hi note for the remaining SI250 Which wax signed I hy Joeln as souretyand Um receiver now demands judgment for the balance title Mr Thaleher ham accepted See vice and taken until March 1011t to plod I |
