OCR Text |
Show )istr!ct Court Hears t liquor Violation Case I The Seventh Judicial istrict Court had a very isy session on Monday i this week, having heard ad tried 32 matters. At ie top of the calendar lere two criminal cases, J it, State of Utah vs. sji'&li Lee Wells, and fc:e of Utah vs. Jerry Ipon motion of the -district Attorney in the e of the State vs. Wells, be case was continued f.il August 17. Tie Court heard the tes-.cony tes-.cony of State Liquor in- fetors and defense withes wit-hes in the State vs. ,frry Day. The Distrist r.orney had filed an affi-avit affi-avit claiming that Mr. y '' had violated the con- J,''-ons of his parole set V' the Court on Novem-Ver Novem-Ver 12, 1969, at which jjj Mr. Day paid a fine 4l ?'00 and was given a Vfday suspended sen-' sen-' 8Bce upon condition that ;i ,e not violate any law for period of two years. t was contended that he J' a number of drinks 1 quor to two State in-ctors in-ctors on May 17, 1970. r. Day's witnesses who !ere in the place at the denied that any sales n' Place. However, the C .,dence of the State ag-0 ag-0 'ta as to the effect that "' ay went behind a y na'n and then brought ' ' m the drinks of liquor nich were coke hi-balls. . "'strict Judge Edward ler'a fo"nd that prepon-i prepon-i k,'"166 tne evidence OiWJnstrated th:lt Mr- H I Si- V'olated the terms of v3n-n S" Would have been fl flour A t0 3ee the drinks yi her or mixed because "T t0 a different kis v.-.0"1 that in which and ,,', ses were seated, drir.. , ,tss the' tasted the i'lnow"'tuthey uhl not ytltoVi ! thfty contained y n because of the coke mix that was allegedly alleg-edly used. Mr. Day is to begin serving ser-ving his sixty-day jail sentence commencing this Saturday, July 25. In the State vs. one 19G9 Volkswagen owned by Floyd Melvin Lillard and his mother.the Court ordered Mr. Lillard's one-half one-half interest forfeited to the State. The State will sell the vehicle and after Mr. Lillard's interest is deducted from the pro-cedes, pro-cedes, along with other expenses ex-penses connected with the sale, his mother would receive re-ceive the rest of the money mo-ney since she had no knowledge know-ledge that the vehicle was being used for the transportation trans-portation of narcotic drugs. This was based upon a stipulation between counsel coun-sel from the State, and the defense. The Judge based his ruling on a previous pre-vious Utah Supreme Court case. Trials were set for two other automobile forfeiture forfeit-ure cases where it is alleged al-leged that the owners transported narcotic drugs. In another forfeiture case, the Court ordered a vehicle ve-hicle returned to the lien holder, to wit, the First Security Bank, by reason of the fact that the bank's lien exceeded the markef value of the automobile and the statute specifically provides in such instances instanc-es that the vehicle be released re-leased to the lien holder. The Court heard numerous num-erous guardianship and probate matters, orders to show cause, tax matters, and made an order for immediate im-mediate occupancy in Utah Power & Light Co. vs. A. Bent Peterson and wife, Mary P. Peterson, et al. It also entered several judgments and granted a divorce to Shirley Edmonds Ed-monds against her husband, hus-band, James Elton Edmonds |