Show DISTRICT COURT important judicial decision on tile jurisdiction of aldermen dees case ease comes up III before the jury TUESDAY AY nov 25 2 pm incho appealed case of ogden city vs joa jos L garner for battery on frank gaylord mr air kimball demurred to the jurisdiction of the court below the justice jos farr esq being an alderman and not a justice of the county his jurisdiction being confined to the limits of the City ae the demurrer was overruled the names of the jury were drawn from the box and a jury was im paneled andrew hansen was sworn for the prosecution he testified that on the 11 alth th of september last near howard sebree fc coa co a corner ogden city he saw a large man knock down and kick a small man mail but he could identify neither he had seen mr garner at the police court N nelson testified he saw the fight but did not know who commenced it both struck at each other ond and he could not identify cither either one both of the scandinavian witnesses belonged to the know noth ing party or had bad studied sam wellers history the prosecuting witness gaylord was absent whereupon the prosecution i gaye gave it up unless mr kimball insisted on a verdict of guilty laughter by of lie the court the jury brought in a verdict of not guilty court adjourned until 10 am tomorrow to morrow no attorney being ready with a case for which his honor made the usual application of his lingual prod WEDNESDAY nov nor 26 1884 1 10 a ro in after opening court the case of john C andersen anderson against E N williams was called mr E it counsel for defendant asked tor for more lime time the most important witness being bein in cache valley hunting cattle the court said it seemed as if lie the attorneys considered that a court and jury had to wait on ex to suit the convenience of heir their clients the peremptory calling of the calendar would commence ruen ceon on F friday rl id counsel said RT ho i would waive a lit jury or with would ile an an amended answer the next difficulty was the payment of costs to the present time which could not be done therefore he the case was ordered to proceed mr heywood elated stated the case an aati action on to recover reco verlon jon a promissory note of the signature sign aturo was acknowledged the plaintiff mr john C adam s 0 n testified that no payment had been made on the note letters received by plain plaintiff tifT from defendant when out of the Territory were put in as evidence to prove that defendant still promised to baynot pay notwithstanding the statute ot of limitations on cross cros s egami examination nation plaintiff acknowledged other letters put in evidence by the defense it it was to the best of his information and not through his personal knowledge that he be understood defendant to be absent from the territory for two years 0 th the defense claimed that the acknowledgment knowledg know merit and promise amise to pay were applicable to a debt debt other than this note I 1 mr chase read law authorities on promises to pay the next case coming up was that of C C goodrich against tho dee A jury was aled to to try the issue mr air kirn kim ball stated this was a case brought brou bt upon appeal I 1 from the police dofice court s are merchants I 1 ner chants in omaha city the claim was for balance duo due on account for goods sold and delivered to defendant fen dant thos dee from jan to april 15 1882 plaintiffs Plain affidi affidavits wits wilh with itemized account attached taken in in omaha were read together with those of the traveling salesman and of the bookkeeper the whole transactions amount to over the 68 in dispute was ft a balance on the invoice of april 1882 fourth of july goods and embed aed in a promissory r note all that defendant had asked was an exten sion siou of time for paying the 68 not disputing it mr A B taylor for the defense eaid said the defense could prove that the goods of april 1882 were bought at new york catalogue prices 40 less than C 0 good richs prices which the latter afterwards charged then there were damaged goods etc ete embodied in a subsequent trial settlement of ao ae count at defendant paying in cash and by prom essory note paid iu in 90 days after alter mr air thos dee was sworn and testified to the foregoing the goods were fourth of july goods when they thy arrived about a threefold price was charged for them defendant ob objected acted at the time declaring he wound deal no more with the firm mr air mount blount the firms travel ing a agent e nt had not carried out the promises he ho had made on tb tho 0 final ahna and full is settlement hecei receipts apts were put in evidence miss polly roily dee gave corro corroborative bora tive evidence court adjourned till tilla 2 p tn 2 ap p in mr JN J N kimball testified that when be he as attorney for plaintiffs applied to defendant for payments tho the amount due that latter claimed that plaintiffs had forgiven him the 68 lie ile claimed no previous settlement mr kimball then addressed the plain plaintiff tifT and mr air 17 Bler bierbower bower CM air rAB A B taylors partner for defendant mr A B taylor continued the argument and was followed by mr kimball in his closing argument the court briefly addressed the jury they dereh cli said the jud judges gesas to whether there was a linal final settlement of account and as to th the prices agreed upon for the goods they were entitled to take with them all the papers in the case axce except pt the tile depositions thereupon tho the jury retired at |