The Mountaineer. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1859-1861, 1859-09-17

and cultivated The soil, with knowledge d Ne
owner; but they have no such interest ii ahem
as can be transferred BY deed o. mortgage. The
naked possession can be transferred only BY ds-
livsrry % another, and 4 may or may moi bs In
dsn:ed BY dssd--but 4 party IN posssssion can
only Be dispossesssd BY the government d the
United States uDless The relation q landlord and
tenant exists. IL this csss there Il no such re-
laiion. This mortgage u theFsfofe void = :
security for The debt, and csnnot be enforced
against The mortgsged propertIt bntH dots not
a. think follow that this cause should for that
reason he dismissed, for under the sets Of The
Territorial Legislature, ! am Of opinion that The
Probate Cont might have given judgment for
the mortgage debt against the morigagor. al
though che security was yoid--if they had COM
moa law and ehancery Jurisdiction = and ibis
brings me 70 consider the second point urged for
the dismissal of this cause.
The Judge remarked that the Territorial Lee
gi.Iaturs, az far as II had the power, had made
the Probate Courts the superior tribunals Of The
The country, giving them exclusive power 10
ssysral Instances, and among otbers that q Sc
tctIpg jurors, and judging q their qualifications
Ias some matters he Probate Courts had eoncnr-
rent juIiadlcilon with the District Courts, and
were BY law always open. 81 .l. ...
Means for holding Distilct Courts, and the
fees FOR officers and Witnesses IN such courts,
were subject to the pleasure Of the Probate
Courts, aud that II the Organic Act authorised
the Legislature 10 confer such powers on the
Probate Court, The District Courtmns submit.
The Judge then read the 9.hsectIon Of The Or
ganic Act, which, he said, vested the eniire judi
cial power Of the Territory ia four different
tfibnnals- Supreme Court, District Court, Pro.
bate Court, and Justice 81 the Peace. Determine
Ing The qualifications Of jurors was judicial
act. Creating another tribunal, and investing in
Il powers belonging to others, violated the Or
ganic Act. Supreme and District Courts had
common law and chancery power. The Act did
not give such powers to the Probate Courts.
Congress could not intend TO create two tribu-
nails with concurrent powers, or Il would have
been specified. There was no necessity for such
tribunals Supreme and District Courts had
common law and ehancery powers, The powers
tof Probate Courts were limited 10 the probate Of
wills and testaments, the administration of.de-
cendeht estates, etc. The Territorial Legislature
cosd create another Supreme Court with the
powers therof, as well as a tribunal with District
Court powers Congress coaiefred the jjirisdic-
tion Of these tribunals Iii the exercise thereof,
the Legislature had power 10 impose certain lin.
its, an for instance. IN the jurisdiction Of the
Justices Of the peace not exceeding 500. Ths
Legislature could Limit that snln 10 $50, sc
The Territorial Legislature could ~ consistent
" create another legislative OF executive DEPART
ment Of the government, with the powers there,
OF, as to create Judicial tribunals. Congress esi
IDENTIFY intended, In The Judicial ,rbanaia, a Iegu
lar graduation from the highest 10 the lowest Ii
the order named Supreme Court, DstrIc
Court, Probate Court, and Justices OF the peace
Cousress created the courts and conferred theI
powers The Territorial Legislature could onI
regulate the mode In which those powers shout
he exercise 4; u could not give nor take. away ii
jurisdiction conferred BY The Organic Act.
His honor considered the various acts Of III
Territorial Legislature, comforting or altemptirI
10 confer original common law and cbaucerJ
Jurisdiction Oh the Probate Courts, ineonsisien
and contrary tothe O:gaoic Act, and hence nsl
ard void. Ell, Il .. A. sa
The Probate Courts having neither common
law nor chancery power, had no jurisdiction o
that cau.s; and that court not having, By th,
appeal, more power than the tribunal from when,
Il came, il followed that tho motion 10 dismis.
must prevail. The suit therefore was diSmissed
atthe cost Of the plaintiff, In the court below.
Court took a recess ill ii am.
II am.
. Court resumed it, sitting. ~.
Case Of D. J. Howard vs.. R. Johnson called.
Court adjourned I'LL 10. morrow, 8 am. =
=. !. ..;.. SAruRaAY, Sept, 4. 8s.m
Court met pursuant 10 adjournment. !. !.
His honor read over the following cases;--T Tie
people ofihe U. States vs. Mcdonald, Earl and
others; the people OF the United States vs. Ly-
sander Gse /; the people OF ths United States
W, John Scott e al; the people Of the United
States VS.. George Toby; the people Of the
United States w. Thomas Iyiei The people
Of the United States vs.. Aaron johnson, Edwin
D. Webbvs Washington Jolly, Il al
Court took recess till 5 pm. 81.
5 PIN.
Court resumed its sitting. and then adjourned
TO meet at Camp Floyd ON the 18Th inst, to be
u session there three days, TO give naturalization
papers; then 10 adjourn sine die .1.: n,
.... 7. g. ROBlNsos, Reporter.
THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT