The Mountaineer. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1859-1861, 1861-02-09

not on PARTNER ahl u -VuVttit 5S"'s II, ~. " y
were eSednted by the said lhemief q their
Trtn and given u thet several Ilayees
thereof fpf and On acCount Of enttle
bouuht III the said Barnard 81 the spid
several i,hyecs. On his own account Hnd
for his own Individual benefit; and that
the said firm, namely Reese & Co signed
thereto. vas without their knowledge and
consent. fli,fl against tile express protest
made 81 oae Of their lirin. the defendant
KiasleY setting for himself, and the ntAel
members cf said iirta. y i arcl u. Regaq,.
both tie SAID payets ii ssfd NOTES, EnGE
the said Barnard and the said plaintiff, IN.
whom desc sey erat not lgere ct wards
conveyed, Had fill notice and kagpitdge
Of thg irBaFF Tins fetpetratci previous Or
III tie tlme IF purchase ri SAID notes.
judgement WINS entered BY default
ngainst tic parties not appearing, Knoch.
Reese, Louis Barnard, and Stephen A.
Einsloy, ami atSo on trial aEaia<t JoliE
Reese lsr tie sam d $40 0F5 SO;
. The case was removed to- this eottFt hy
writ Of error. The exceptions taken bb+
low wsrcss Ist. TIE incoalpetency OF a
j8rof, on the ground Of not being d. tax
payer as reqnjred Nv lay. "a Tbec6art
creed in declining 10 give .tlie Jury the
instructions asked for hy defendants
counsel 3 "A .s
. In the application Us the defendant 10
bring the ease toll he supreme court, five.
aeparate and distinct points of.ertpf were.
.4ssignedf yet il aIipaars from the record.
OF the proceedings Of thc court briDw,
stltnt there were but two exceptions taken
by The defendant. ,.l ]. I'd. !. n
Whilstal that is necessary 10 bring q
case from m inferior to the superior court
Is iii the absence IL any statutory progi-
sion prescribing the forms and rules Of
procedure, simply TO file the record, the
errors may be asS igned in the court aloYe;;
still these errors must agree with tic ey.
captions takcu below, Oh else be patent
on the record, nor Is IL The duty Of this.
court 10 Inquire into and Inspect the re.
cords Of the court below, aIi decide
wherein the plcadings are defective, and
'NAeFpin the court erred in its rulings and
opinions, when the law. has provided on
the means and remedies By which a party
can take advantage Of such defects and
errors in The Judgment Of the court or
otherwise al the preiSer time. (Belget
VS.. Davis Morris, 565. II they are not
so taken, they are, considered waived.
The only points, therefore, SO far as ex.
ceptions are to be considered, are the two
thus made. i, l..,. &.
Tie first exception, Is as TO the guhEf.
cation Of one Kinney to serve Dis d Juror.
He was challenged BY the defendant be.
low on the ground that he was ineotDpo.
tent, not being . taxpayer, and on, his
toir dire answered rs follows:
+ H. That he did not own taxable proper.
~ within tile territory Of Utah, thar he
was aware Of, as he did not know what
legally constituted tilxahfe property; that
be owned awateh, a mining; claim and q /
tpnt. s.s" 81 =: Z. Il. !, .,.: Z rs d ~
III. That he did !. not pay taxes within
the territory Of Z tab, That lie had Ecyer
btest.ca3ied upon 80 To do. -. =. /. .....::
WhprenpOn the defendants by iaeir
counsel challenged said kiuneY- II g. |
The court GSerrnlrl lhG objection anil
allowed thu Juror TO be sworn and sit in
the case: Irhe statute prescribing the.
qualifications OF ,;arpTs 10 rti.cii ,tEon ia
support Of the objection as to tbs COM.
potency or eligibility Of kjanry no
jGESg. '.s..., ~. :. -. =,
1t Is .trEe the statute prohibits. any
person form. acting 5ts juror eloEess he is i
Taxpayer; hut the question arises W hetl3er.
this statute il. not in cou.lict with The
constellation Of The U6iged StateG--nhieh.
provides article VII. Aaleadmetfs , y =
The right Of 3triil BY jury slrlli be pee.
sptyct. Il. n :, 81. +. A.. {
When The fEanfrs of ,llla eoas,ftaiiol
used the word jury, they used ig with.
reference 10 its Specification at eoninlo0I
law, which WAS a jHyy Of twelve nielll
and loGsekQ!dsrs. Then, has the lsgisla.
tire the right, nUGler this, constitutional
provision, to restrict OF impair the right
Of trial by jury, prescribing auy Terms
different from those that constitute q L. |
gal jury at common law. i i. !. Il
If they have a right. to say he shall nav
taxes before being eligible, lave they. not
the same right 70 say that he shall possess
any amount Of property which they may
deem proper, and thus virtually have the |
effect to exclude many good citizens from
a scat 10 the jury box. Who're are we to
draw the line if the power TO prescribe a
property qualification is conectfedl Sup /
pose the legislature shonEd say that be- !
iore'a mati was eligible he should lac worth /
ten Thousand dollars, and certainly they t
have right to exempt from taxation oil /
property nader this amount, would IL not |
operate IN a country where most Of the /
people arc from, 10 the entire exclusion of I
tAe right OF trial by jury, and no matter, |
however oppressive this must seem, YET,
II you concede 10 the legislature the pow I
er IN the ore case, you must grant it ia the !
other, - ...:-.' !. =: -
-. Whenever this question has been raised, |
II has been decided, We believe. by our
highest courts, that the Legislature has |
not the right TO aiiix any terms other than |
those prescribed at common law for the |
Qualifications Of jurors, -s ~. - =.
+ The question has often come np where
the legislature allowed no less number
than twelve men 10 act as Jury. aud |
where a Ea9jority verdict was allowed aud
where the defendant in d criminal case was |
compelled TO pay certain jury fee before /
the trial; andi every INSTANCE the corr Is |
har,l f,Rr,Aa,,ir,,.l a - +