OCR Text |
Show RANDOLPH, HAMILTON 1 AND SHARP MUST DIG j hhhh! Court Gives Carbon County Judgment In Ex- i jH cess of Twelve Hundred Dollars j ;.jH Ketchum Case Is Off. j ': At mmn best I'rbla) Judge Mbtrt II Chrlste nson having disposed or the mtcnihir an for an net at that lime adjourned dlstrle t court until Monda) lant, the J8th However I'rbla) oven lngH train broiiRht Allen T Hnuford to Prlre from Halt lake Clt) and on HAturda) morning court wan reconvened recon-vened In hear the cane of Cnrlnin count) against J It Hhnrp, W T Hamilton nnd llenton Itnmlolph count) tmtmlssloner for the nlleged mlnnppre,prlntlou of the publlt funds The cose In the meantime three of them had been set to null the convenience con-venience of court nnd counsel The action are utso against the American Huret) eompan), Nell M Mndsen I) V Mlckeljohn T II Thomas nnd the llllnoln Hurcty compnn) II) agreement or council the three ennen were consolidated Into one nml argued a a single case A goodl) portion or the da) wa consumed In the hearing Drrniilnntn b) their counsel ntnted that the) desired to stand on the nine tided answer without with-out waiving lhc legal objection urged Attorne) Hanford ror the dc rendanl ndvlsed the court that he had no objection to Judgment being entered against the tlrft iiilnnln an priDrd ror In the complaint on those cause or action to which demurrer to the amended uimwcrn were mis-mined mis-mined II) consent or the attorne) ror the plaintiff nnd upon motion or theuttiirne) for ele re tubulin the latte r (ibrrndniilM) were grunted n Ma) of emotion or nlnrt) da) from the time or entrj or JudRinrnt In the cane pending appeal Judge Chrlstc nnon'g ruling on Hai-tirda) Hai-tirda) Inst nml prevbiusl) In considered consid-ered u great vie tot) fol Carbon enllli-t) enllli-t) tnxpa)ern The three, cancn were orlglnnll) Instituted b) C C McWhln-tie), McWhln-tie), nbout two )enr ago when he wa count) attorne) Tim pre scut count) uttormy fell heir to them, nn it were, b) their being continued along from one term to nnnther The funds alleged al-leged to have been wrongfully appropriated appro-priated were spent with n bunch or Hall l.akc Clt) law)er In the prosecution prose-cution or (lev II) m J tines, ex-count) clerk, ex Hlit riff Tlioinn I' Keller and C C MiUlilnno, ex-count) at tome), while J W IMinund. an auditor au-ditor of 'Inn, got some of ll In connection con-nection with the (lull) m June cane llrleri) ntated, Ihe total Judgment secured b) Carbon count) nmuuntn to 11210 111 Or thl amount f SCI 0J I In the rirst cane In which there were seven cause or uitlnn In Ihe second case $333 31 I recovered with two causes or action, and 1153 70 In the third case, whloli had lour cause or action embodied In the complaint riled Whether or not nn appeal will be taken to ihe supreme court Attorne) At-torne) Hanford did not slate before hi return to Halt Lako Clt) Kitt hum l.lllgutloii DNiiiUmiI. The ease or T A Ketchum. now u resident or Portland, Ore, against the Pleasunt Valle) Coal eompan) wherein where-in title to the land where now the (own nf Castle date stand or a greater portion of It wan net for Inst Monda) Home thing of u nurprlne came, however, when a motion to din-mlsH din-mlsH wan miijju by the attorne) repre-Minting repre-Minting tho Ketchum Interentn nn Halurda) lant Pleananl Ynllc) Coal eompan) bought thl land uround tw ent) -six )cnr ago, han beon pa)lng taxm on It ever since and In addition han mado around a half million dollam dol-lam In ' Improvements, surface nml otherwise Any title that Ketchum In prcnumed to have) I b) reunon or a .deed conve)lng lo him the old Mark enlr) or a hundred und nlxt) ucrtn, Markn being the original locator Utah I'uol eompan) and tho Denver and lllo Orande rallwa) were also named a lUremlant In the' action Ketchum wan not here In pctrttou nt thin term or court It had oeeti un llclpated that tho Ketchum cano would connumo connlderablo time However with Itn ellnmlnnal court wan adjourned from Mondn) until enter-da) enter-da) (Thurnda) ) morning Judge Chrlstensnn and Court llepnrter Alder Al-der went from Prlte to Mantl, returning return-ing here Wcdnenda) evening Court wan again reconvened yenterday and In ntlll In m union an The Hun goes to press Siilllvim Htilug XeDonnld. The case of P. C Hulllvun v 11 It McDonald and McDonald Heal Kstate und Investment eompan) came on fori trial late esterda) forenoon und I still being heard u The Hun got to prime nt noon today (rrlda)) Plain-tirr Plain-tirr sue ror un accounting during the1 time himself nnd McDonald were associated as-sociated toKethcr In tho aaloom bual-nena bual-nena at the Oak liar, south or the Denver and I tin (lrande track at1 Price the old John 11 Mlllburnj place In Ihe complaint plaintiff seta forth that he and McDonald bought the real estate and building and the ueloon stock, furniture and fixtures and were equal purtner The pur-chaso pur-chaso price waa 13750 00 During the partnership Mtlhoiatd I alleged In have wild off portion of the prop- '.HPfl ert) and to have received a rent I i:IHjHJ therefrom n total or thlrD-nlne bun- sVjH dred ilnlliirn. of thl sum Hulllvnii iHHI put sfvrn htiiiilred dollar In the orlg- IPI Intel iiurihase prbe or the balanrev Pl or the thlrD-nlne hundred dollnm, 4vHPl Hulllvnii nlltgen tlwit MeDonald re- mBhI celved a rent from Maxle" Mat- HHI tltigly, $too oni from Jessie (Iregnry; hH (itirehnse of ground llioonn Acker- RaViVi man A Crnlu $C00 00 from nalo of ll ground to some cNilored people', rVJI $3(0 00 nnd from insurance when the i iHHl place rinall) burned 100 00 Atlnr liHjHJ lie) ror plaintiff e lielm that the tiook tHHfl or MeDonald will nhow a pnrlnershl jH arrange meut The re In n balance H due the Mlllburnn Itlnnllrgid or rive ;SH hundred dollar or the original pur- .HHPi eluise prlie When the case camo up !HHPl fm trial )eslerdn) a motion b) plain- HHPi tiff for a continuance wan denied fljVI Judgmiiil guliiit Wntnin. HP9 The I'lrst National Hank or Price HHH wa jeslerdn) nwarded a Judgment or ' HjHH I5M1C. I principal $10 3 Interest and . HHPj $5k 06 altornei) fee and court eont PVjWJ ngnlust l'red U Wntrou the principal t BH being ror mom ndvnnied defendant HHJ when the tatter wa running the. I HHPi tlaslirn t lab Advocate Wntrou kHHPj during Ihe time had given the lunik u ffVjVjfl ntturlt) a rewtwilr nlle and nomc wa- IvVjVjl ter lotatlonn up around Ihe liitul or BBPH Willow Creek On Aptll 33, !!(, mVHHI Wntrou asnlgiirel three wutir apill HHHI cation (loentlons) to the; bunk to- IDjWjWJ getlier with Ihe reservoir nlte to no- HtHHI cure the pumeiil or a loan II It. IHHHI McDouiild wan In with Uiitrtuia em VawHHl the water und reservoir The wiilrr HHHJ loiatloii were later irolrted b) Otto HHH A risher nml Pre el Davidson, who jH claim ii prior right The water and HHHJ reservoir nVturltle are considered HjHj worthltHiM b) those who huvt gone In- HHHI to the matter at the slate e nglnrer' HHHl office ut Halt Uike Clt) HHHJ Niimrmun Oilier Cum lit HHH Helper Hlnte bank Vn, Price Macs- HHHl run I eompan) null on note Judg- HjHjHJ ment for the plaintiff for 15301.9 1, HjHjHJ costs or $11 30 and uttornrn fern of HHHJ three hundred dollar JB Hjrlliln Cook vn De llnle Cook) ell- HHHJ vorce Interlocutor) decree granted HHHJ and tho plaintiff maiden name of H H)rllda Pierce restored HHHJ i'lsk vn II A. Houthworlli HHHJ and ollicrn, suit on foreclosure Judg- HHH rnenl for principal of nolo and Inter- HHHJ est and one hundred dollar attorney' HjHjHJ fee The note arc for $300 00 ami HHHJ $110 30, renpectlvel) HHHJ Albert Dlmlck v Ulnh Fuel com- H pan), damage. Motion ror new trial H argued and matter taken under nd- HHHJ le ment by the court. f HHHJ U o Hoffmann vn. fl A Kings "lit HjHH on note Judgment for plaintiff In H the sum of $817 10 ami Interest. HHHJ l M Hhlreman v Kuril King and HHHJ W C llroekrr action In connection H with a lease of real estate Compro- J mist el out of court for $113 60 H Nick Hrrlmo vn John Ne tnan and H Htllo Klsmos suit on account Judg- H ment for plaintiff In tho sum of H $557 50 nnd attorne)' fee or seventy- BHHJ rive dollar. H Peter Jouriu and John Dlumenll HH vn. Oust Pappan Angelo Thran and H cithern, null on account Dismissed nf ll plaintiffs aaVIH Capital Kleclrlc compnn) v Harry H O Cl)e, action on an account or PHH $3335 40 In the flrnt eaiisti of action HHJ and five hundred dollar In the seo HHJ ond Dffeiuliiiit asked ror ten da) HHH In which to file amended nnaivtr. nml HHH twenty da) gralitcd HPJ lleujamlu Iipex v Kufcmla Ipext HHHJ divorce and custod) or minor child. HHH arantcel a pra)ed ror and ten dollar HHH u month ullnwcd ror upport or child, HHH Murla aiullaccl v Habatlna Olul- HHHJ Inccl. divorce on ground or donor- HHHJ Hon (Irttnted HHH Prlco Itlver I'rult eompan) vs J. H C Jensen damage ror trenpatue by H reason of defendant nheep herd H running over land of plaintiff Con- H tinned ror the term on application or B plaintiff H In the matter of the estate of Hllin. H beth Ileaale Larnen dcresed K T. HftVH ilorkenhagtn of Helper, appointed HBVH administrator HBWBJ I Judge Chrlstenson expects to ad- PSpBV Jiiurn court tomorrow for tho term, PSpBV The calendar for thl term should be PH I prett) well cleaned up b) that time- R |