OCR Text |
Show LABORS 0F7 I ' RAILROAD LAWYER H In tho district court this morning, H r nftor hearing a fow probate cases and H attending to exparte matters, Judge M ' Howoll again rosumed the hearing In Hl tho coso of Charlos R. Hollingsworth H against the Salt Luke & Ogden Rail- Hj way company. H Tho plaintiff was again called to the H I witness stand to testify to services H I alleged to havo been rondorod the de- H ) fendant company as assistant local at- H torncy. Mr. Holllnssworth Btntod that H the servlco enumerated in item 19 H -were rendered In the year 1909, be- H twoen Februao' 1 and Juno 30, con- H slating largely of settling cortnln dlf- H feronces between tho city property Hr owners along Thirty-second street and H . citizens generally, and tho defendant Hr company, In respect to the high grade H built by the company to reach a high H . ' lino over tlio street and over tho in- H I I torsection of tho Union Pacific rall- H I way trnclis on Pacific avenue, H The witness stated that many com- H 1 plaints had been made against tho H, ' I chnnglng of the grade of tho street H I j and that property owners were clatn- H orlng for damages. Tho city, too, he B I said, hod taken a hand in the matter H and was Insisting that matters ho ad- H I justed in some way to protect the H I property Interests and also subserve H I the better Interests of tho municipal- H 1 The witness arranged a number of H r meetings with the city attorney and h' j the councllmen, and rccelvod offers of H L settlement from property owners after Hjj I they had been conferred with. HJ ' ' Arbitration agreements were drawn M j r by tho witness and submitted to the f ' I property owners, arbitrators were Be- , j lectod and, the witness said, he was J i In constant consultation with tho one M I selocted by tho company to determine H . r tho qucstionB of difference. Ho had Hji much to do In the examination of H'i j deeds and abstract records at the H , county recorder's office. The final Hl settlement, which was the purchase of H I some of the property along the street H In question, he had to make out papers H and see Umt everything was dono In H a legal way and the company's inter- H csts protected. For this service the H ' plaintiff charged the defendant $750 H Item 20 enumerated services render- H n ed the company in arranging with the Hf county commissioners of Weber coun- H ty for a rlghtrof-way over certain prop- H crty for the road and that tho rail- H 1 1 ' road company place the new road in M good condition. This matter, said the M I witness, necessitated the drawing of W agreements and deeds and the examln- H) ' ntion of deeds and abstracts', all of Hh which was worth $25. H I-t. Hollingsworth stated that the H' services enumerated In Item 21 were t worth $250 and that he had charged Hi the company that amount. It consist- H! I cd of purchasing land from Milton B. Hi ) Hall and Jennie B. Shield and necoB- H sltated the probating or the estate of H ' Minnie Barry Gelgor. An agreement H was entered Into between the com- H pany, tho witness drawing tho samo M and negotiating it with J. C. Nye M for tho purchase of the property and H final settlement. Tho witness also co- H I umernted other things done in con- H i nectlon with, item 21, Including cor- M k , rcspondenco and the making of differ-1 H I ent kinds of papers, deeds and ab- M i stracts. Hl The testimony regarding this item t J had not been concluded at the noon J H adjournment. H I I Immediately after tho reconvening ' H of court thin afternoon the parlies eu- HJ tored Into negotiations for a settle- j mont of the case and It Is more than H likely that an agreement will be H ( reached. If this is accomplished it, 1 . i wIU put a stop to further court pro- j cccdlngs. |