Show I SALT LAKE CiTY LOSEI r ecton In the Paving Case Rendered by I Judge George Fi Good ln fINDS THE ISSUES fOR THE PLAINTIFF 1 JVAbh it from 11 hCII 2701712 I Nolan of Chuno App1 I George P Ooodvvln Esq who tried IMvlng com Pacific ot the 0 the caw Clt as Judge pro Lake City Salt salary 1 vs SI CI a decision today tcmporo rendered I I finding for the plaintiff certain Its action upon Plaintiff brought I urn Plnll constructing pave tan contracts for p upon Wt Tem meats and sidewalks UOI 1le I and State streets entered Into In 181 and 1893 It of notion second cauies The flirt and scnd cu T lor were tion SU up In the complaint lon claimed 10 b I certain unpaid Interests caime estimates of the I due upon the monthly Csllal city engineer > mad In accordance will the terms of tho contracts and upon by l approved when prrved vhlch estimates bn work It was the board ot public bd should pay the claimed the defendant plaintiff a certain Ir con In money planUI cntjJ1ou forTh for-Th third So l Toot tile l w hole I the I ten per ol ul Ih I I to 1 a which under h trm bal Orract do to le ral1 h he defendant cll > so me oriatiowfund 01 file tile I mr1116 A A luarny 0 durability IIIUA 0 vcrk grand for rplll drblly lar A eertnjn rep Ia alleged that crn I I as 1gd tht lion 01 tile City Coulrloope Dc lon ac 01 hlb Mr trm tile 193 23 to teran atiff ell rporation a Ih1a cple hy 0 wa entered Into bY Vihic how h-ow cOlta these re the defendant Agree d to pay dIldln hn nlunUng to gained petarcentages perntG In I 139 = 5 In full equal installments len ant ten mont On a arPec Lively from I hot The dl an o or admitted the contract I TO nwe o f Other alleArAtIOn and denied all tile alegalon tile 11 Complaint to onthe TrTa t the de allowed to mnd tha ° n frndont we ald ondtlholvaln J er so an to Pet up rounclm for tO arilliW denelency In for allege for l71T all olegd 1IIncy the amount of paving 1lch required th furnished b tile plaintiff under th U g AtescOhrot Cause 01 lon th Ulon I that the plalntlft Is I entitled courtrlnIs con theiptatntiff titled to the Interest v a med tom It tle On the Around Cause 01 action Arias that Plaintiff Is I on the court Ind 00 abet plalnll titled to recover1riteren I I a the nmoun tte rPor an 10 I 0 1717 d lm36 the c it tY nelnr on to fueled V th offered de i ji final m a tlllrP fleine 01 plparh MidshediLional Inert nclny 1 al I 185687 a 10Hd tbn aghenj I UI r lunrllm wlh to net finding interest hon makln Indlng lotrt Cultivated maklmetea Qulon aa to the amount cn1 plh I fu r lashed Inn tit 1116U5 on vor 01 to rtlnur I aggTegate on ill end Cause 01 so Von On flaRlard I ft11 A 01 aton the court 0 bln finds that the action of the City Cou fnd on X mher 53 I ISM I ad I nc cpanr I by tho plaintiff room fluted Anew A-new Contract as to the time of Pan Mont 01 the ron PeTrentsNever nd tht plAnUr I la ntld to m ovirr said Amount of US 813 21 with Interest on 19 410 0 2 at the legal 1 rain from Juy 2 ISM and with Interest on 1 t3 g i the legal rate from OUo IS amounting In the aggrega 10 to um of t < 2111 < The total Amount Out plaintiff Is I entitled to recover undo un-do the decision of the rourttlern dueling the amount of 1661 and 1 legl Interest allowed defendant on Its Mon trrclalm Is the sum ot Ito up I I-to April 2nd KM |