| OCR Text |
Show 'JUDGE mm ' 6ISM88 Tentative Victory for City in Suit Against Second-Hand Merchants. Judge J. A. Howell of the District . Court yesterday afternoon denied the molinn of dismissal made by the I delindants In the case of the C'ilv of Ogden against F. F. Wee her and George. O. Mc Bride, and the local j second-hand dealers. The court's decision de-cision is considered a teuatlve victory vic-tory for the city, which has brought suit against the second-hand moreh-' moreh-' ants to force them into paying a license li-cense for conduct lug business lu Og-dc Og-dc n. In the attempt of the defendants' counsel to have the case thrown out of court it wr.s charged thnl the II-(cnse II-(cnse ordinance which the city is attempting at-tempting to enforce Is ' invalid he-cause he-cause it Is discriminatory and gives to the city council nnd the mayor an unwarranted deli Ration of power. To prove that the ordinance In of a discriminating dis-criminating character the Mlowlnff was qjoted from Section r 1 2 : "If any person shall furnish such evidence ns shall satisfy the Council C ommittee on l.lceiuo that he, by reason of misfortune or physical infirmities, in-firmities, merits exemption from tho payment of nnv license herein re-nuirpil, re-nuirpil, the mayor may remit such license li-cense upon the recommendation of a majority of such Committee, provided, that no license to manufacture or sell intoxicating liquors shall be remitted." re-mitted." The Judge In rendering his decision decis-ion concedes that the q ioted parage from the ordinance is undoubtedly in-alld in-alld but that this part of the ordinance ordin-ance is not tantamount to the whole and does not lender tho entire ordinance ordin-ance invalid. The Utah Canning company filed an answer in the District Court yos- terday afteruoon to the complaint in the damage suit brought against the eannc-ry by rreeman A. Murray, guardian of .Iames F. Murray, who was Injured In the defendant's factory fac-tory on the seventeenth day of last January. The complaint charges that young Murray at the time of hig injury was employed in the cannery though not yet fifteen years of age, and that the Injury sustained by the boy wns of so severe nature that It necessitated the .imputation of a portion of the right, lfg The answer admits that such an accident occurred on the dat ni'oted in I he complaint out denies that the defendant company had nnv knowledge that the victim was under fifteen years of age when he wns employed em-ployed by the company. The answer charged that the accident was in no manner the fault of the company but. was solely to the negligency of the victim and to want of care and prudence pru-dence on tho part of his fellow ser-t ser-t vants. I ' |
