Show I EiGHT tl T HOUR L LA W WT AT T STATE T lt r l 1 Question as liS to Whether It Applies To fo Guards s Employed There Investigated I WANTS OVERTIME Suit Sull to Ii Compi the lit t Kite te teTo To Ia Puy 1111 Him for or Extra Ex t ra The quell qUon Ion a as to 0 or not nOI th tile taw law li I to fu i it II the lUU tle t II again aln being today topsy t by a jury In of 01 lb the diaL riel court The CM CUI In which the point u Ii t relied A It that of C L J 1 Schemer Int the till State lIsle of ot Utah and Id the iii Ih Iatt 1111 board of 01 corrections correction and waa wap we brought to re ri rover alleged all to 0 be Ii b due dU for Cor over overtime time put flut in by plaintiff while employ employed ed ad d a aa 1 a guard uNI at the tit atoll The Th complaint that plaintiff woo waa compelled oom lUId hi to 10 work overtime amounting to I 4 daYI at it tile the tb between bel March 21 at sod and lId July U ta 1 slat and that ruch time i II a worth mTV Un A claim for tor that amount woo ta to the Ih elate board nt ot but was wai denied Defendant In their claim that a rule was wai at III the tho pris on n re requiring each guard luard to remain at nt athe the he Ih prison 11 on each lIch alternate night to be In Mae ease ru of an on n y and slid that plaintiff knew nf or that I rule 11 agreed II to o by 11 It IL he woo wai employed no in a guard I Thu li II I the lit Iii trial of or II lb OHM osie 0 On the first trial woe wan I had oil during lat alt term of If court ourt lh the jury could not ulf on Ott a verdict und nod waa wea w ed find irni lime lunce a trial wae ws at neat wry Uy an II li represented by b At C P Loufbourow neal and Judie Judge W iv V If Ii 11 King IcIng while defendant are r rep Ull by Attorney General A jury waa Wal 1 Impaneled tills ll and nil thin thi takIng n of ot will nh be lie c thin ihla th III afternoon |