| Show COUNTY WARRANTS Judge Cherry Dicdss That They Host Be Paid OMMISIIOMHS 111 OK AITHLHI ourti Opinion In Isall3tro I 111i lau l-au Aged lady I Appllts fur n Ultorce JuJge Cherry sustained the It nurrer to the answer ol the defend until In tho cue of John A Frllicu vs he Halt Like county conirnlsslourrs tii m > rnluit directing and com innnJI B the lIorIIJanl to lecrgulza the validity ol pUlntllls warrants and I to take Such stepo as IIIYJ > isscommary I prpr aUJ llrolik I 10 ray the gain Ilalulllli IramoJUtuly lFavelloticalif I appeal to tile BUtu Sapient a Court where tile transcript na Bled later lu he day Arguments wro tookar1 on both silica yenterlay ta > lug up the whole ul the morning and alteruuoD AtS oclock court ailjoiirnel I until today Tills uicrnlnic Attorimy J 11 Hard for the plalntm filed a demurrer to 1leJ alll answer on the gouod tbattheanowerdDes nol state filets ulllcltut to constitute u deletions to pUiutllla petition or warrant the refusal df the relief therein prayed for0 The court as before slated sustained be demurrer Judge Cherry In giving bIB opinion this morning said I regtel that tulUclont time was nut allowed to carefully consider the question railed by the pleadings In ho vane but at the Importunity of the nitornoyi for both aldtx lor obvious reasons I will decldo the matter at Ihli time from the belt light I have and Irrn a mere costs a I cOUBldralioo 01 questions ably presented by counsel for loth partial I laIll say la the start Hut there to I some doubt In my mind whether or not the Plaintiff like not sued tire wrong paitltf that is I whether dr not Iho couuty treasurer Is not the proper defendant but as no objection Was relied on this Point It la I considered waived mod the question then to be drclileJ to I simply liMo the outstanding county warrants IbOO for alt Like county vahu defendants by their answer admit ad-mit all that Is alleged In tbe complaint u d defend their action by pleading such a financial coalition of the Uiuuty and Us management that It lnllowBas claimed by defendants That Ihe warrants hell by plalullll tu Invalid for Ihe region Hint IIe Unbt limit I was ofba by J03I2070lu I i the year 160 and that therefore tile plalntlU not entitled to the pay moist ul tho bald warrants now la the cuinty lita ury Tit cI tot read Irom Constitution a tiele 13 SFUtlou 3 page U4 statiilK liigta f17621ICllu 5 uud 1C Blalu pugs9541J1 cllou 106 statute jig e 649 fidet04 07 all liar Iho siollhatioLs Imposed Iy the Lag I ielstutK the lounilcs sbouM 0011 he i conttrucd to beuebti Iccurrtd by the county tut only lIeu obtlgatlo m I ue me dKcreilouary hould be within the Lonitllutlonil piohlbltlun It the view ol the delou jants U I at feet then the ill notion 01 tile county would tease jlilt us loju ne Ihi debt limit wo reachej eqt K 13iUUO wasthquistshotalet tob txfuullufeA 01831t Lake county for this year 1800 ti en wheu that amount was rtutliua by way ol civil payments ur In war lautl then the wheels of county gov element wcula slop All the county munis Could relu to act am there ould be fuel provision to pay them Iouris would have loiuipeiil as till cn mild jurors could not bo cooipelle tu serve without pa > even au electio et Old n1 bL held I I 1 clone tho in debledutbrto tile dp u ei of sal 1 1 0100 lloi whlcu would bn rallhouu i Oollnri would be creating au uunu Illul lit dbl und would bi luvall riuch n construction It Funn to info would be Inviting rot UdIRLIOU anti anarchy Again If there Is I 10 dlstlccllon bet tweeu be-t au Mlcatlou Imposed hy law 00 tho county and a voluutary liicurilug of db by the cautly then Ibo auld bo too priority ot the creditors ol I tilt OUulyt ud a claim for story 01 au clHclai or expenius incurred lu prcneeullui criminal enter etc would not be a prelerrtd claim over a claim tilt ao uiily for utr ylo < gophers or Log loll I tllrow Mm worklui for the cunty or furulihlne luppllis cannot tell the day r hour Whllihu dbl limit expire a an it 1 would tome as a thief lu Ih 1 r tiltbitri 0 lying un hl LIWeettificate of t tbuctiK rauJltor that the warrants were wllblr the dibtllmll are entitled 10 0 nip cooldratlo auI I SRI In lIuo 10 this 10111011 that tile county h thetalser ottopled from deny lag iiielr lUllllly I anti ol rccelviug lIe material or services and then scik to repudiate Ihe obll atlcu by a technical techni-cal quibble Jom flow view I have txpresioJ It wuld fill w that iiccoidln to the aniuer if the difeuuont tit a tt < b Iwll I was not reaped In the ytar 110 u d therefore Ibo delouse full 10 tu k mud 11 is my opinion that at least a part 1 not all ol tbo warrants brld hy pUluDO sio not invalid mid that the II I lilnliU I have the rtllet prayed for 11Ar11 lillneel tourist silver A lerullaranil somewhat taJ cue come lip beMe Judge lilloo tills mum mi Harsh A Weal upward ot 81 years oh al > rlld for divorce froli her huh lld 1 JmmH Wr sow twunt > tuts hot Junior Hi ilahillil in her cmplalil al Iren I r u fly and lcJtitlon The I soam Ili crOIl1IRlnl maks in gain m ngMilon ao lis bis aged wl v I The tIJ Hdy look tile Wltnesn slnti in her own hthulf ibis inornlnc ibciiieiyituor I sheulltied c uld lie I uuleriUoi I rut pttler It appealis were matrttd al tiossAl fib years ago at Colorado 8pralict Tiley came 10 Utah lu ILo vpl tog of U01 and liavo resldel hire nlnH Alton y Day appears for the plain till while Judge 1owtra represents t 0 ifeudant L ivavu WAS given the plaintiff to nien lib I c niplalut by tmtliu II e n fimio a section of Ibel laws of 1SUO which provides that a deserted flu can ipply to Ihe cjurts for relief and make her husban support bet bould Ihe testimony I warrant Tile court refused to grant a decree tit r Tire but t a llnwncs of S 20 a month temporary allminy was or tiered The case will be heard more fully flu Ihe lot dy of the next teron I B WIUuue Was appololoJ rusrJIo ad Illem to hire WI I > lhIIn Isles State Bank 01 Utah ve the r < oiac Hedge company il I ai umuritr withdrawn with-drawn ten days 10 a wr A II 1 Italelgh vs Mlisndg Pratt et al 1 demurrer overruled ten s 11 Ili You to answer state Bank of Utah TB Ttopk Equitable Coop elol IIcmllrrer over ruledo tell days to answer John Edditia ve Hall I Lake fly ugudordued that costs be IUM al ftrt OS Senior lleucett TS CouflJence Mining < Milling conl ant milieu wlllul argument lIIumr 01 luld let jisyl 10 answer Sanford Ilennelt vsUterllne Mining A Mlllhm oimram lotus ruling Mary 1i Shaver > i al 1 it A O May birrj ft ni itt for turday a iiu bttu II OOjntlill vs Samuel HAuerbaoh argued Unmuel U Auelhach vi Basis A Wall demurrer withdrawn and 60 days given to answer treaty D Smith v Henry Newell etui order made transferring to dum inn Uaty W II Atwood vi Phil lido Hutler coutl > utd at riuueit of do fell taut |
