| Show SHOE GO VS HENDERSON SHOE after ten da ants bui lurt i I 1 to 0 o reach ii a verdict the case cabe of the brown shoe company of st louis missouri against the henderson shoe store of richfield utah has occupied the time of the diga district let court of county for the past ten days judge joseph H erickson presided at the trial the plaintiff was represented by NL J bates and james A stump and the defendants attorneys were ere parley magleby and hayes k heppler tho the aarion was brought by the plaintiff to recover upon a promissory noto note tor for 1514 dated november the ath 1920 and made payable one day after date hearing bearing interest it at S percent and providing for an attorneys feo fee of I 1 15 per cent it the noto were collected by an all attorney the sofeni ch of the defendant to thu the payment of the note were nere that the same was obtained from the defendant under dui dm ess which means unlawful restraint intimidation or compulsion exerted to such a degree as to induce the maker of the note to sign the same contrary to hn hii will hilll A second defense was that after the said noto note was executed and suit duiff was tiled filed for the colip ion the same that the plaintiff and defendant entered into a new agreement whereby the plaintiff accepted a chattel mortgage gage in satisfaction of said note defendant also interposed a counterclaim counter claim and prayed far damages against the plaintiff on oil account of the plaintiff levying an execution upon defendants goods and fixtures and closing ins his store from march 1921 to april eth 1921 obtained by reason of a default judgment taken by plaintiff against the defendant upon tho the said note which said judgment was aa thereafter set act aside by thy thu court the C case ise was bard fought all along alone the lines and was finally submitted to the jury at 6 a m wednesday the jury reported to the court that they would not agree abreo upon a verdict it is reported that tho the jury was equally divided four for the plaintiff and four for the defendant A retrial re trial of tho caso case will probably bo be had at a date data to be hereafter fixed by tho the court tho the personnel of 0 the jury that tried tho the case and failed to agree is as follows wallace daniel peterson A B christenson Christens cn francq olson IV A N C laurleen lauritzen Lauri Laur taen lUen martines Mar lines christensen and M C nelson |
