| Show sUlm m OPINIONS 8 Three o nf ot Thor Doun lo lolon lon from tho lo cr Court Three opinions were handed down by supreme court this afternoon and andIn In ench clue case the tho judgment of at the lower court wal t In two t 10 of or tho cas I dissenting written by Justice Chief Justice wrote tW of the opinions Ild Justice wrote the tho other In JI tho case of ot tho Oregon Short hOlt Line Railroad company against W It H Jone Jr JI et al II appellants condemnation tion lon suits joined In ono for tor tho pur purposes poses of ot this appeal tho Iho court holds under tho thu statutes of ot this Interest cannot be br allowed In eon con condemnation suits as os part compensation tion for damages to tho owners owner of ot tho tholand land condemned The order of or con condemnation cal was waB mado modo by tho lowe court courtIn In II favor of at tho company C 0 tho amount of or the tho damages by reason 01 such luch condemnation was WI assessed n cs In fa ta favor vor or of ot defendants by u 1 Jury Defend requested tho court to Instruct tho jury to award them judgment for In Interest Int terest t rest on Oi the amount of or damages from March ID Il 1903 tho Ihu dato on al which thu tho summons was served on them Th court COUlt refused r to glo such luch instruction an anneal was taken by Jy defendants 1 on that t it ground In the tho opinion of ot tha court holds that tt tho Iho statutes provide that tho jury shall award us lS damage tho actual of ot the tho land talton at nt atthe the dato of or the of or summons and nothing moro nor loss it I ex excludes tx any on claim of at Tho ho Judg Judgment JUdS ment la 10 therefore In tho of or rohr Mohr Tous against a tho Hallway Halway company appellant Chief in II tho Iho opinion of or tho court holds holda that errors nd nt upon the evi evidence dence for Cor determination In III jury jur cases cannot bo considered on appeal unless tho same s mo Wore presented to upon by b the trial court on motion for fora a now new trial In this caca caso plaintiff sued to recover damages for personal Injuries At the tit conclusion of ot tho evi 01 evidence dence defendant t moved mOVe tho Iho court to Instruct tho jury to return a I verdict In Its Is favor of or no causo of or ac action tion lon Tho motion was donled denle and RM a II verdict for WON WR rendered In favor of or plaintiff The Tho case was WR appealed by bythe bythe the without making a n motion for tor a n new trial giving tho trial court an opportunity to pa Iau u on the matter of or errors alleged to 10 have havo been boen committed In Its Is Instructions The defendant deron ant now nw attempts p la to 10 havo hlo the tho supreme court review revlow the Iho In the cn clO o decide whether or not the court erred In refusing to 10 glo tho Instruction asked It holds hohl can cannot cn not bo be dono don unless a L motion moton for tor a new trial baled the error complained of or has been mado and overruled thus Ihus bringing tha tho evidence on that point pint properly before the appellate court The Judgment U Is Justice dissenting Tho judgment of ot the lower curt court la Is also In the cage CIO of or the tho Don Bon Bonanza anza Consolidated Mining company et etal al nl appellants vs 1 the Golden Head Jend Min Mining MinIn ing In company Tho action acton was wa brought to quiet title to four mining claims Tho lower court found In favor tavor of de dc fondant as ns to two of ot tho Iho claims and found that neither parties were entitled to tho others oth r judgment Is II affirm affirmed ed od In nn opinion written by Chief Jus Justice JUI tice and Ind concurred In by b Justices Justice also dissents In this case cae |
