Show y FIRST DISTRICT COURT uy iloh 1 21 emerson associate justice presiding FRIDAY FF UDAY may 9 12 pm in the case of levinson Lo vinson vs E A ireland and the utah national bank the following jury was im im P paneled ameled edward barlow F A brown W H gibbs robt M LN burch thomas reed james it stewart tS samuel banford robert GB G berrett errett robert shaw george hincer ezra ricks and andrew rose sir mr H L griffins name leavin having 9 been drawn and he be not appearing after personal service of subpoena upon him the court made a compulsory order for his appearance to show cause why he should not be fined 50 for contempt mr heywood stated the case to the jury air mr levinson claimed a bill billiard iara table that was assigned to D alexander for the benefit of the credit credi tors of henry and was sold with ot other er goods without the consent of tale plaintiff air mr marshall read the answer of defendant denying the allegation showing that the goods attached b by r them were being disposed of with with intent to defraud the creditors an unsatisfied judgment of a court at the same time tying lying against the good and chattels of henry the real owner he g gave ave to the jury his version 0 of f the case the definition of apse dixit and how they ought to dixit the grand jury came into court answered to their names and pre scented one bill of indictment case of levinson Ley inson resumed mr kimball put in as evidence a bill of assignment made by H to D alexander jan 16 1884 daniel alexander was sworn and testified that ho lie was the identical daniel alexander named in that deed the property was delivered over on the evening of the day of assignment he produced the inventory ven tory A billiard table and the balls etc thereto belonging were included in it ho he held the pro prop erty all and sold it as required by the deed mr simply assisted him he sold the stuff billiard table included to mr levinson at inventory prices minus a discount the billiard table was sold for cross examined by mr marshall was not positive tiye whether the door through which he saw the table was a glass door aa as he had already testified fiedor or a solid wood one was positive positive that the cloth if not the balls balls etc were down in the cellar considered that the table was given aiuto his possession although it was in an upstairs room the keys of which were not given him did not pa pay attention in what condition the talle table was or that he lie saw it all mr H sworn and testified that he lie was the veritable in the assignment deed identified the one produced as the inventory taken of the goods assigned got the table from mr thompson as his agent to sell for him went thompsons Thomp sons security for duo eichter richter mccarty taking the table as security described scra the upstairs room where the table was kept the table was attached by a deputy e u t U S marshal for the utah national bank it was then probably worth without the tile cloth and balls it might bo be worth cross examined by mr Mars marshall ball when ho he inventoried inventories invent oried the table at he lie did not think it would bring more than that sum mr N mccarty testified to the didenti identity of f the table which was now at his hift brewery having been bought from W C warren about tho the of march last the table would probably have fetched ready CAR cash s h the plaintiff rested the defendants offered as evidence from tho the files of the utah national bank the complaint and writ of attachment the latter was objected to as net na baying been properly issued no such affidavit in attachment as the statute requires having been made the defense def ense brought in the execution and sale to the rescue the court ruled the affidavit to bo be insufficient the summons and judgment oe 0 the court were offered as evidence the latter was objected to because no allegation was made in the answer that such judgment 0 had issued objection was overruled exception was taken the execution and return were offered and received mr dooly cashier of the utah national bank of testified to the banks receiving receiving rec eivin g costs of suit deau deputy ty marshal perkina perkins testified to tho the executing of the ant ft and the finding of the table upstairs in a room overhead Wool ners saloon sold the table for to the highest bidder mr P J barratt testified as to the leasing of the up stain rooms and the chare share of rent mr and mr air smith were to pay up to a certain date after which date the table in question was put in there described the door as a wooden one with a transom over no one could coul 11 see the table through the transom the room was rather dark mr W 0 warren testified to the table being mr Wool ners property mr was recalled mr levinson went away in february february Y leaving him in charge C rosse ross e x as to how bow short a time M mr r levinson had bad been in town did not know where he was now before levinson left he lie gave witness full v power of attorney no relationship existed between them mr rubel testified that the value of the table on the of march last ass wes about mr kinsley waa was examined as to to the borrowed light window in the upstairs room in question described it as possessing plenty of light but it was after march last and after undergoing the taking down of partitions ac mr barratt being recalled explained the alterations and improvements made to improve the light in ill the rooms the counsel on both sides ad dressed the jury jur clearly explaining the law requiring a delivery of property rc perty after the making of the bargain Ear bargain gain and sale and within a reason reasonable able time and that a sale made with intent to defraud although good in form was null and void the jury retired at jam P and returned with a verdict in favor of defendant and stating there was no cause of action SATURDAY may 10 9 am budgor Jud goR K williams as plaintiff but in the interest of the firm of C A hooper co ofsan of san francisco sued sidney stevens merchant of this city for balance claimed for shingles sold and delivered williams Vi lliams conducted his own case kimball Hey heywood food for defendant jury trial defendant in his answer denied the indebtedness putting in in his own account the affidavit of mr C A hooper ofsan of san francisco was put in a as 3 evidence and read to the jury also tho the correspondence between the defendant and tho the firm of hooper aco co the bone of contention was the allegation by mr stevens vens in his correspondence that he lie was charged for eight hundred shingles at the rate of one thousand and that many of them were worthless mr kimball objected to the affidavit of C A Ho account of his not answering the cross interrogatories roga tories lie claiming he could not answer them because he be had bad no knowledge of the subject matter in them neither were they pros pounded to the witness the court sustained the objection Plain plaintiff tilT took exceptions the court expressed himself himself in a very decided manner against the evading of cross exam nation mr kimball started his cas case cafter after which sidney stevens the defend ent was sworn and testified letter press copies of letters were offered and accepted plain tiff having neglected to annex ta the I 1 e ori originals to tho the decosi depositions lions mr stevens stated he lie had natly flatly refused to enter into the compact to palm off on the tile people four bunches of shingles each to the thousand although informed that other dealers in ogden were doing so and that mr hooper himself agreed to furnish him at five bunches hunches to the tile thousand invoices and statements of shipments produced the ac count amounted to all of winch which had bad been paid cross examined by mr williams the contract was made in march 1882 2 was then informed of the custom of the firm as to size and number of shingles but had refused to take less than fiyo five bunches to a ft thousand mr leaman stevens vens clerk did not report the number of bunches there were in in the first or any other shipment was not positive whether he had informed mr leaman of the arrangement for five bunches to the thousand probably he be had mr R W W leaman defendants clerk was sworn n testified that he counted tho the shingles in the first shipment identified tho the invoice produced there were bundles or thousand shingles cross examined did count those bind bundles bindles les was not in the habit of so do doing counted them because the hilll ya yardman yard 1 1 man nan had bad neglected to do so invoices bills of lading ac were put in evidence plaintiff wanted to callar call Mr gibson to prove the custom of having havin four bunches of shingles eacle each to the thousand the court said it was unnecessary as mr stevens had already testified that ho he had bad declined to deal in that way IN plaintiff ain addressed dressed the jur jury vigorously 0 defending the good old custom 0 of four times two are ten the remittances mit were exactly the same amount as tho the invoices charged the defendant had no evidence to corroborate his own as to mr hoopers alleged deviation from tho the usual custom at last he be makes a claim for a difference why not do so in the first and other remittances lay on oil macduff the stripes strives ou on kidneys Sid backlas bac kwas the krestof the argument sidney was not in the least affected REP mr kimball made hia his plea quoting from mr hoopers affidavit and the first invoice of al the bundles counted in mr stevens yard being although mr stevens sent ent in his account in 1882 plaintiff waited more than a year before afore he lie made the claim that led to the present action judge 0 williams in hia his concluding argument scouted the idea that mr hooper would change hia his usual custom for mr stevens or any other person mr stevens had made a great mistake the court charged the jury in forming them that if they believed a e I 1 special 1 e 11 ll al bargain was made to change fr from 1 m the custom they would find i a verdict for defendant plaintiff lain tifT the jury found a v verdict er act for defendant |