| Show FROM MONDAYS DAILY JAN 3 SUPREME COURT A brief session of the territorial court today at 1 this afternoon the first session of the january term ef cf the territorial supreme court was held in ila this his city chief justice zine zina and associate justices boreman and headerson were present the following settings were made TUESDAY ami JAN 10 13 peter Thy appellant vs john C whitbeck and elmer taylor respondents from first district P H emerson for appellant A G stith sutherland son tor for respond respondents ente 1 17 ellwood H orth respondent vs zions coo co o operative mercantile institution appellant apoe llant from first district williams william s white for respondent N jr for appellant JAN 11 14 james thompson appellant vs jennelle Jenne tLe C thompson respondent arom rom third district C 0 more inore and J G sutherland laud for appell juat W via vaa cott for respondent tal M ogden city Cily appellant vs john johb mclaughlin blin and ray bay gollagher Gilla gher re fram first district Pl strict N tanner Ta auer jr for appellant L K R rogers for respondents 28 james R Il hopkins and reuben C cleveland respondents respondent vs city appellant from first district james N kimball for respondents P H emerson and N X tanner jr tor for appellant THURSDAY JAN 12 7 the people of the territory of utah respondents vs wilford H halliday appel appellant laut from second district georke george S peters and C W zane for the people peo P denny and J W christian for appellant MONDAY JANUARY 16 3 the united states respondent vs frank imp appellant from third district geo S peters auda and W 11 dickson for respondent arthur brown and le grand young tor for appellant A 4 the united states respondent vs nathaniel V jones imp etc appellant from third district george S peters peter and W H dickson for respondent spon dent arthur brown and le grand young for app appellant claut 5 the united states respondent vs john harris appellant from first district george S peters and D E evana vans for respondent WN W N dusen berry berryjr S SR R thurman Thurm anand and geo sutherland for appe appellant Daut I 1 8 the people of the territory of utah respondents vs andrew calton appellant appe ap Mant from second district geo b peters and C 0 W zane for respondents P denny and J W christian for appellant 20 george mumford Mn raford respondents respondent vs Dic kertA meyers sulphur company appellant from second district P denny for respondents C W zane for appellant FRIDAY JAN 18 6 the people of the territory gry of vash respondents vs maurite maurice grath appellant from first ogden hiles and J N kimball for respondents E D hoge and geo sutherland for appellant TUESDAY JAN 17 i 18 william E barlock and joseph W condon appellants vs elizadeth and elizabeth C shupe shape respondents spon dents from first district J N kimball and A ar R heywood for appellants T maloney for respondents 19 des mines DA argent et Fond Fon eries derles de e Bini bingham tiam a corporate body appellant vs richard mackintosh sh respondent from third district marshall royle for appellant bennett Hark harkness neso kirkpatrick for re spon dents 24 H R losee plaintiff and respondent vs nelson mccarty et al defendants and union pacific railway company garnishee and appellant from first district A R heywood for respondent P L williams for appellant WEDNESDAY JAN JANIS 18 15 matthew orr appellant vs john T rich and james respondents ei its from third Dist district fiet sutherland mcbride for appellant sheeks rawlins for respondents THURSDAY JAN 19 10 john J kelly et ct al respondent vs andrew J kershaw Kers liaw et al appellants from first district dickson varian for respondents williams white for appellants the following were submitted for rehearing and aad taken under advisement the wasatch mining co respondent vs joseph A jennings et al appellants from third district sutherland INIc mcbride Bride lor for respondent P L williams and fe rawlins lorap pe pel lants john W enright et etal al respondents vs richard grant et al 41 appellants from third district E R b D hope hoge and W L snyder for respondents arthur brown tor for appellants the remainder ot of the calendar for the term which is as follows was temporarily passed 1 afie united states of america plaintiff vs the late corporation of the church of jesus christ of latter day saint i ana an others defenda defendants tits geo S peters for plaintiff sheets rawlins legrand young and fes richards for dolend defendants ants 2 the united spates america vand plaintiff 4 vs the perpetual emigration fund company and others defendants geo 8 peters for plaintiff shenks sheiks rawlins legrand young and F B S richards for defendants 8 lucien respondent vs mary alary et al ap appellant appalls nt from third district W ji HT dick Dickson son tor for respondent J A marshall tor for appellant 21 abram hopper appellant vs thomas W bates et al respondents from third district sutherland mcbride for or appellant rosborough Ugh merritt M M kaighn and S H lewis for respondents 22 andrew C brixen respondent vs the deseret national bank salt like lake city appellant from third district hall and marshall for respondent marshall royle and le lb grande young for app appellant blaut in the case of the united states vs thomas F harris on appeal from the third district court arthur brown asked for an order requiring the clerk of the district to send the original record up the application was denied arthur brown moved the admission of R D winters to the bar J L rawlins moved the admission of joseph hurd J N kimball moved the adamie admission ision ot of L E R rogers the court set 2 p m tomorrow for the examination and appointed P L williams JN kimball andle grand young as examining committee the accounts of 0 pardon dodds united states stales commissioner of uintah county were allowed in the suit of the united states against the church of jesus christ of latter day saints J L rawlins on behalf ot of the defendant corporation stated that an appeal would be taken to the united states supreme court and aked a ked that the amount of the supersede ai bond be fixed it was urged by the counsel tor for the gover government that there was no right of appeal appeal Z but mr rawlins thought the right existed and desired to td present an argument on the case mr peters said he would resist the application and wanted the case deferred till 2 pm tomorrow v the case was set for argument at 10 am tomorrow the court then adjourned to that hour and the three judges repaired to the city hall to witness the opening proceedings of the utah |
