Show FIRST DISTRICT COURT the ato U o land drags drugs its slow M lieth aio alo t the decision of tile S IT corner gurner of lot 6 TUESDAY dec 23 q 2 pm john J kelly of salt lake deposed that ho he had joinell owned property with mr dee about igor 17 years ao ago they put on it I 1 it a building 0 of 18 feet front and rented it as a 9 store gore added to tho the building which with the addition covered the 21 feet after that time a partition was put in in the center of the 21 feet mr browning asked them if they would take seven feet of him on tho tile north side and they deeded seven feet to air pidcock on the south side bide tho the corner was 29 20 feet from tho the 6 W corner of lot 6 1 washington jenkin jenkins eq testified that he had made the map which waa was in court mads it from dededi and ho lie claimed it W was as correct I 1 J J kelly examined reexamined re he ile had bad divided the tile 21 feet after the 7 feet were traded with bronning brow jiing took possession of tho the south half the same premises cs aa as aie are occupied by kershaw today day kershaws Ker Kers shaws baws t partition being 7 feet north of the old partition cross examined did not buy the 7 feet on oil the north horth because a part of the building was on the 7 feet in qu question eion had always been it ill occupation cu pati patio of the south 10 feet and the building I 1 al B wheelwright testified that he lie had occupied a portion of this laud in di gutc both from kally and ker bliar tho the same aa as is ia now occupied by kershaw tho the south 10 feet of tho the partition he lie collected lent rent from dee fur for kelly for land on the north sido side of ita parti tion about 7 feet cross examined dec pai 1 the money under protest and aud baid that I 1 some day he lie might gel get it back the present partition was in the before the land wai bought from browning A J ker kershaw shaw testified that lie bought 18 feet of land from froin kell the tile corer corner he lie claimed commenced 29 feet beet north odthe 0 south s est corner f lut lot 6 tho the old partition is between 10 and it 11 feet north of the corner of his lot tho the north line was e established by the county surveyor and tile partition is ioor now a little south of that line de dee D e had paid him rent for premises north of the partition for u year car and eleven nion months tins and he lie kershaw Kers liaw obtained I 1 possession posse acion of this 7 feet about july 1 ot I this year ear he ile put up a partition in the rear end ot of tho the barber shop which was torn down under tho the di of mr marah action as dees t dee paid paid ren rent t to him r willingly till the time when the parti partition tiou was taken down mr dee told him to take possessor posses sou in july last mr sir marh did not object to the tile partition being put up yet it wab was torn down about ten days afier after at olit time the new nev partition is about 31 3 feet south of the fc aloon when then the partition was torn down he lie did lid not agree with mr air dee to let the curvey settle where the line should ie I e court adjourned till 10 ami n m wednesday dec dee dec 24 2410 10 am mr A J kershaw recalled re called the damage done by tearing down the partition and hia his time and that of his men inen was 50 be besides eidee interrupting his business and causing the loss of a tenant mr Lain lampert jert the barber the evidence wa was s struck out defendant haying taken po A lease from jo john hu J kell kelly y to plaintiff was put in aa as evid evidence enc frank J cannon esq was sworn was county recorder of weber canty C anty an ani cast custodian odian 0 the public records turning to pago he lie found a deed iced from froni ala mayor or farr dated nov 5 1870 to jonathan Y browning for fl or parts of lota lots 6 and 7 block 26 in plat pat A nt the S scorner Ec E orner of lot 7 thence west mst 16 rolt rode north 7 fact ea cast t 00 50 feel north feet fee t wi ct 30 nor north ali 15 feet cast east 19 16 iod rods and nd routh louth to chice cf of be gi gennina gin I 1 ining nina tr judge williams wanted to in traduce a deed dated february 1 1873 iroil jonathan browning to ch chas as Woodin ausec tho the court ruled that as it did lid not cover the ground in ru controversy it was not to introduce it mr cannon turned to E 1447 deed of lorin farr to win 11 II pidcock d dated nov ath 1870 B wed out for same reason A deed from wm win 11 II pidcock to 0 woodmansee mansee was read commencing 7 feet north of tho the S W core corner r of lot 0 6 20 feet met front mr air 0 0 Rie richards bards was sworn was count county clerk of weber county turned to records of july ard 3rd book 0 page 48 ken kel L haw and dec dee minutes of in ill probate court order authorizing at this stage attention was vas tumid A upon mr jr cannon who pro ducca dock book K deed fron from wro win II 11 pidcock to jonathan browning december 11 1879 commencing 29 feet north of oath the s w corner of lot 6 north 7 feet 9 inches etc also book G page iced deed jonathan browning browning to james 1 L dee and john J kally dated june 24 1871 already in evidence also book L page jonathan browning to james L dec dated september 17 1878 com commencing mel icing 57 feet 9 inch inches north of the S W corner of lot 6 and deeding 8 feet 3 north etc ruled out as having nothing to do 10 with tho the case as we were re adv any deeda not covering the ground I 1 in n t ditto with the deeds to W V JL dark on the north part of lot 6 and israel canfield s claims south of the n w corner of lot lol 1 5 20 26 A the nest next deed iced offered ered was from the adminis orators of jonathan browning to james L dee 0 Woodmansee and A J kershaw for 2 feet frontage commencing 27 f feet acet north of the a w corner cr lot 6 and 8 inches frontage dec dee and kershaw to C wood m see commencing 27 1 I feet north if 1 0 the a 8 w corner of allot lot 6 I 1 next cornea conies jus jas L dee and J J kelly to wm win 11 pidcock for 7 feet frontage bagi beginning 29 1 feet north of that S IV tv corner corne r then administrators of browning to J J E kealy elly january 22 1880 beginning 29 feet north op 0 tho the S W corner north 7 feet 9 in inches che east 50 feet north 6 feet 3 inches east 82 feet north 23 feet east cast 8 rods south 4 rods west 8 rods north 29 feet and west 8 rods to beginning next the 10 feet from dee to kelly fret feet from the S IV corner of lot 6 then J J nelly to A J kershaw 18 feet 3 inches frontage iron tage commencing 29 9 feet north of th the sable b S W corner the earth has a i true pole and a ni magnetic pole the lawyers and survoy ors have ww never been there yet if the they can call locate this corner to suit all parties they wi will 11 be likely to get there HEI ite 1 mr jo jos recalled re called showed on the map where the S E corner of lot 7 would be in the center of block 26 20 and in a direct line with the tile S W corner of lot a G arms examined lot 7 is immediately c cast t of lot 6 had seen any stake at said paid corners corner went by tho plat ite indirect direct As AB an engineer with his loll 1011 long ex experience perien cc ou on Jl blavin avin A decd put in his hands he lie would inen suie arora the center of the eat side vide of block 26 as the point fur for abo south southwest comer corner of lot 0 6 taking the official at as evidence lie re brok tho plat does not refer to any original kotakes or corners but gotlie to the shape and size of block bloc ks and lot ifcic if he found an original stake it would depend on oil circuit cir cuir stances whether he lie would discard such a point for measuring the tile survey might not haye been offis bially recognized would not move a laid ou out t street nor move an all established corner to interfere with peo pies acquired vested and recorded rights lu in other cases he lie would correct errors if ho he found them repeated his former testimony of the excess in blocks and the mode of ori original ginal measurement on exterior lines and til taca n checking oft on the ineide lines the f first t official plat was well executed the survey was not so il good mr J 1 K N kimball said he lie could prove rove by an ab absent benl enl witness ex I 1 bayor mayor lorin farr that tho the chain used in the original 0 r ig inal survey was too long that t there ll 11 e r e was sm an excess 3 in in each block that the corners of lota lots met in ill the tile center one half of the till excess going to each lot meeting 0 in ibe the center the coutt t said it would be immaterial adjourned to 2 pm 2 pm P m mr ae mal marsh malsh sh argued that the point at isue lay a mainly in the location of tho tile S W V corner of lot 6 also the pleadings at t tho he time the deed was made by tho the mayor to decade aco and kershaw tho the ground 0 round was already occupied by the building artandi rt anding ri on it tho 31 feet in 1880 mr dee commenced paying rent on al an h undefined piece of ian laud but that diet dm pot not preclude him from afterward 4 his ownership rights tb quoted the case of fuller and sm 0 michigan Michi gall and similar casis casts analogous to thia thih the plaintiff claimed atle title aad and pos eion sion both defendant ba had dagro agrosa d to let the matter re rest t until a proper survey should made an al t that at mr air jenkins bew was what his predecessor atrid him that ho had bad left an land stakes driven by ayery tom dick and harry were unreliable i mr jenkins admitted that he lie had made a change of bound boundaries pries in fifth street to suit I 1 parties by dividing in 9 i in n the center of tho the excess and 11 had 1 moved the corner comer fit fant lot 6 south mr air 44 ji mcknight fol followed loved when bb hea cached the subject of the 7 feet exchanged on blint informed V that they wp lafo not covering tho 21 feet they thought they had bought in order 10 be ile right there was an argument between tho the coquel and thu the court tile latter asking anliot could the object be if the land j was shifted so was the I 1 building if counsel argued elx six months tho the pith of ofilio the matter simmered down was where is 13 THE ST CORNIER CORNER or OP LOT G counsel argued still to show that tho tile dell defendant enfant in moving the partition north d abl dbl rl not tres trespass pasi on plaintiff on counsel referring to mr woodman res evidence tho the court said mr woodmansee Woodman sees s title was not being beug tried neither did the parties in in this suit buit IIII 1111 havo vo to look to mr ir Woodin ansec i for theirs they A hey had their deeds which referred to ton it certain lot as per ft a certain plat tho the parties not in the suit had to take care of them rel counsel bravely argued on locating th the equator as an imaginary lino line did not mention the earths poles bolcs tho the court occasionally i anally setting him im right the tile fact of plaid plaintiff tiff pa paying bi ll 11 g rent was then deba debated ted counsel 0 u sel eaid said mr air marsh relied on oil field notes while ho preferred ened stakes theiron tho iron pin supposed to havo have been put in iii bayz by mr fr sherwood the first fint surveyor over which spot tho the mark in the rock wad waa cut and the evidence of witnesses thereon was mentioned tho the surplus had necessarily beau thrown into lot 5 by Can fielda fields deed tho the court then there is deficiency def f fici ency in lot mot C G counsel el every owner in lot 6 has every inch belonging to him 20 rods was all that was intended for lot G the court why so was it intended to have 20 rods 7 feet in lot lota 5 counsel it was forced over there by the force of circumstances the surplus cut no figure in this case then tho the damages the court Neit neither lier party hai has nt attempted tempted to disprove the others damn damages you must le leave ave them on the tile testimony given judge R K william 3 aa a bafo precaution commenced with putting his teeth in his pocket and al at it he lie went in his usual vigorous and masterly masl cily style ha he cogently reviewed the dates and titles of the deeds as given starting from the northwest corner of lot 6 bringing the 8 4 or 9 i inches de h e s 8 south 1 0 of f the buried iron pin the only original stake founds the lot owners agreeing to it the maforo deed was then obtained and buildings avent vent with the land he ile ably reviewed the evidence and find traced the number of feet to each cach party plaintiff ho lie said had every inch of land his deeds called for standing liia hia assertion that he lie holds 4 feet for which ho he hai bai no deed saud in u that J browning could not give 1 I it to him the parties held their 66 feet from Woodman sees bui building iding so long occupied by them he ile proceeded to read co copious ious authorities to show that a please lease when the court r aid paid it was and williams eaid said he lie would file a brief air lir J N kimball followed the official plat of 1852 was the one on which tho the mayors deeds were wr founded lots met in the center of blocks he reviewed the testimony of the surveyors and ti alio feet of frontage named in tile deeds and 7 feet exchanged contrasting tr mr kellys testimony with that of mr dees the 4 feet het be tween Aless rs deett dec carroll could not be deeded to him by J browning the latter having commenced at the northwest corner to sell bell off by the front foot Bless rs dee and kershaw Ke on the other baud band having their measurements from the southwest corner Plain plaintiff tifT claims he lie did not commence paying rent until 1880 when kelly bought the 7 feet back fro from pidcock tid Noi cock if plaintiffs title was Wa sTood good his paying rent would not stop him because defendant did not have possession until he lie took it tn in june 1884 read authorities the partition wall in ill the center of the pa 21 1 feet was the dividing line and was agreed upon as euch such by the part tes court adjourned adjourn td until 1 friday morning mo ining d |