| Show I ORDERED A NENTIIIAL TIAL Supreme Court Decision In the Case of the State vs Orrin Porter HE WAS CONVICTED OF BURGLARY And fern t rnrr < t to Three TeareImilltirr Tritmonj Altourd to Uo InAn In trn Ca on Appeal Chief Justice Zune delivered an opinion today In the case of the State against Orrin Porter appellant reversing re-versing the judgment oC the court below be-low and reman ling the cause with directions to grant a new trial Ore was convicted before Judge Ilolapp of the crime of burglary und on the fill of January 1837 sentenced to three Years In the State prison As In the coze of William Kllburn recently re-cently reversed he a convlcted mainly on the testimony of Walter Foley whom the court found It will h remembered to Ie a very bail man Porters offense was the alleged breaking Into the powder magazine of Drowning llros In Davis county Foley was with him when the crime was committed but claimed to have been there In the capacity of n detectIve de-tective The State also Introduced James Klppen ns a witness who was questioned as follows Did you ever have any conversation with him I Foley with respect to his detecting or disclosing certain offenses that had been committed Yes sir I What did he maya lie told me he was going to catch them fellows in Portervllle that had bon Atnllng DId lie My whoT IVeN Did lie mention the dcrndant Well I dont know that he men ton Porters name In this I 1m not positive but he said the gang Did I rou ever have any conversation with him as to who the goi 0 In eluded I I eYen Yes Plrt Did the gang he spoke of Include the defendant or not Well Jtsj he spoke of him on different occasions In speaking of the gang Yes sir of the gang The States attorney also put Chris Kofford on the stand Similar questions ques-tions were propounded to him and sim ilar answers rIv 1 DrndantA Attorney object1 tn all this but Judge It Of apt rule otherwise The ronvrat no narrated hy Kip pen and Knife were the statement or Foley and were not made In Porters Por-ters presence Foley had sold that Porter was one of the gang and that he was going to catch him When the question Did the gang he spoke of Include Porter wan asked KIP pens answer was that t Foley Flooke or him on different occasions whom re rerrlng to the gang r The court rinds that these state merits were not ore aA the confem full of a conspirator with Porter In the burglar and In furtherance or I they were not so made Klppen was also asked It the gang Included 1 Porter and his reply Was that It did The court says this question ton wan Improper for It wn not comllnt file him to spy who Foley meant to Include In overruling the objections of de fendants attorneys to the Question And answers ot out Chler JuU Zane finds the lowe court erredand hence revers the judgment and or den n nw trial trial Justices nnrlrh and Miner concur In the colon nt 31 Ilrry Answer David M Parr who was made ac rndnnt Iy him wife May U Parry In I n divorce nl med In the Third L114 trict court me time Age made answer an-swer to the complaint today denying the allegations ot Mn Parry and nH n defense nets out thai In May 1887 at Llko Nevada his wife abandoned him lie admits slapping his wife In the fare but says I waR done In nn slurry moment and nlY hat I she rcrwlrd forgave hIm for it It Is I also alleged that Mrs Parrys father has attempted to nllneate his wifes affections from him Defendant Defend-ant also pays he Is I now ready and I tiling to take his I wife back and be eves she would I return Tic in were It nol for the pernalon And undue Influence exercised over her 1 hr father Perry nk i that his wifes complaint he dismissed Ierguson A Canno lre Parrys attorneys An Tn aranr Ca 0oD Ape Judge Cherry and a jury have hn engaged today In hearing the cause on appeal of the Itorne Insurance com pany of New York und Phnlx Inur Ince company of Hartford against Ile her J Oranl and company Plaintiffs brought action to recover UOUt from the defendant company alleging the Mme to be due an unearned comml along on I number of cancelled policies or Insurance The case was tried bee be-e United States Commissioner A 0 Norrell I In December 1S15 who found for the defendants In the sum ot to9T when an appeal was taken The defense Is that many or the policies cancelled was nt the request of the Insured and that It had pild all uch unearriosol pr mlunl due thc tue on but I had first deducted the usual expenes In short rate charges on re turnllg the prom turns 1 Is I also con tended by the defendant that It ne cepted the agency subject to the pre nlling TU10 among Insurance clon ianl > s which was that upon conceliii ton ur an Insurance Agency conln I entitled tn all rommlolon Iirevlously received for riing Insurance policies and thai an ant was rot required to 1 return to the company any portion of hla commissions Previously reeh1 o an the amount or the unearned pre aileron mt u reed hy companies 10 the nsnrid thereafter I J ninlnny Is I Ihe attorney for the plaintiffs and Moyle Zane and COMI bn appear for the defendant company Cpnt lnln John Heck has brought suit against Charles Doeltcher nnd Sal ul Lake 1 county to quiet title to certain land I and premlsei In this county A |
