OCR Text |
Show DISTRICT COURT. The Central Building Com panyis. A. O.Smoot AND HARVT H. OLUFF Is the Title of the Caeo Being: Tried To day It is an Important Caas A Nam ber of New Suits Have Been Filed. The time of th. 3 First District court totlay'is being occupied with a case in which practical y everybody in Provo is interested, one in wmch ail in Utah county art more or lesi interested be-cause be-cause of the prominence of the parties interested. Thti case 13 entitled the Central Building company vs. A. O. Sinoot and H II. Cltiff. The plaintill'a allege al-lege that the defendants entered into a contract with S. Jones and R. II. Dudd whereby Snioot and duff agreed to furnish 10 Jone3 and Dodd a clear title to a certain piece of land at the corner of Eighth and J streets, Provo, the title of which is in the B. Y. academy acad-emy or heirs of the Brighaui Young estate. es-tate. This contract was disposed of by Jones and Dodd to (he Central Building Build-ing Co. and on thej et e ig'.h of that contract, con-tract, expecting a clear title to the ground, that company proceeded to ouild the Central biiildiu which for a CJUiile of years or more ha3 btood in f.n unfiuished condition simply because the title of the rroiHjd couid not ba got, render-iug render-iug it impossible for the company to set-money on the property and the buildics:. For failing to convey the titje aad tuus making it impossitde f-jr the company to huieh the building", it row sues Messrs. Snioot and Cluff for 00.00 dam?KeB- Ti e defense is that Me3?rs, Smoot and vJiuff wh.n the contract waa made were acting as trustees of the Bngnaui Youna academy and if any damage waa dune, they personally are not responsible. respon-sible. Further, that before the contract con-tract was disposed of by Jones and Dodd the defendants explained to Joiies and Dodd just what kind of a title tluy could furnish, which was not satisfactory to them, and that at hat time Jones and Dodd could not pay the money agreed to be paid for the title eo that at that time a breach of the vJ.'Htij' bougut that cunfci act, "Knowing precisely wnat kind of a title could ba and would be conveyed, eo that no damage has been done them. It took all the forenoon to procure a jury. So well known to the public are the parties and particalars of this Eiiit, that many of the juror3 had ueard of it and had fixed opinions as to its merits. Some of the iurors were interested in it personallybeing stockholders of the Central Building company, while others had intimate friends or ralatives connected, con-nected, some on one side and some on the other side of the cse. William Probert, a juror, being asked if be knew anything sbout the case laconically replied "Yea," there's some of my money in that building I've been in all the good (?) thing3 that started up in Provo, that's the reason I'm broke now." Mr. Probert was excused, ex-cused, ae he "seemed to know some of the facts in the case.1' Judge Loof burrow and E. E. Dudley appear for the plaintiff company; Messrs. Thuvman, VVbitecotton and Houtz appear for the delendants. NEW CASES FILED. George C. Whitmore, president of the iehi bank, haa brought suit against the B. Y. academy, A. O. Smoot, VV. H. Dusenbeny and S. S. Jones for $3,6S2.86, balance due on a promissoiy note for $5,000.00 signed on March 14, 1893. The imviduals named signed the note as endorsers for the academy. U. P. Hendereon is Mr. Whitmore 's attorney. Eliza Cuddeback has brought suit for divorce from her husband Lefevre Cuddeback. Jacob Johnson is her at attorney. The two were married at Monroe in Sevier county in May 1, 1890. fche alleges for grounds of divorce that he has for many months been very cruel to her, that he has used vile and obscene language in her pr ?fcence, in the presence of the children and in the prepuce of strangers. So unoearable did he make life for bar that bhe could endure it no lOBger and was on October Octo-ber 30th last driven from home. Warner & Knizht, attorneys, filed papers pa-pers lor divojce for Zereida Ilorton. Mrs. Horton alleges a long term of personal viol-nee and abuse by her husbasd whom she alleges Is an habitual habi-tual drunkard. Her husband's initials are E. L. The two were married in Park City on May 10, 1888. EIJORT OKOERS. Anna Tanner vs. Myron Tanner. Damurrer to cross-ccmplaint sustained and the defendant given thirty days in which to rile an amended cross-com-plaiut. First National Bank of !Nephi vs. Chsrle.i Foota et al. Thirty days from November 17th to prepara statement oh a motion for a new trial. Anna Marks ve. John T. Sullivan et al. Set for Monday, December 10, 1894. |