Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-12-11

would be proper and would limit it, so far
as the jurisdiction OF Justices these courts
are limited by the act of Congress~relat-
ing to Utah unless it should be found it
was q violation OF the Constitution OF the
United States, and so far as the jnrisdic-
ton is limited by the acts OF the Terrific
rial Legislature, it would be valid if the
Legislature had the power to pass law
so limiting it. The 9th section of the Act
referred to is as follows:
"That the legislative power of said Terri
tory shall extend TO all rightful subjects of
legislation, consistent with the Constitution
of the United States and the provisions of
this Act
Forbidding any law with respect to the
real estate in the possession of or the
property of the United States, and provid-
ing that the Legislative Assembly and
the Governor shall submit to the Con-
gress of the United States the laws passed
by them, and if disapproved they shall be
void. So that the question is as TO what
is the effect OF the following language:
'That the Legislative power of said Terri
tory shall extend to all rightfu subjects of
legislation"
THAT is A BROAD GRANT OF POWER.
AS have stated, the jurisdiction of JUS
tees courts is a rightful subject of legisla-
ton. 1t is a point upon which every
State probably in this country, in this
Union, and all the Territories have legis-
lated, and there can be no controversy as
to that fact, within reasonable limits.
There is another section, Section 3, OF the
Act OF Congress approved June 23d, 1874,
that also relates to jurisdiction to some
extent OF these courts. The language is:
"I'he district courts shall have exclusive
jurisdiction in all suits or proceedings in
chancery, and in all actions at law in which
the sum or value of the thing in contro-
versy shall be $500 upward, and in all con-
troversies where the title, possession or
boundaries of land, or mines or mining
claims shall be in dispute, whatever their
value, except in actions for fCrcible entry or
forcible and unlawful detainer, and they
shall have jurisdiction in suits for divorce"
1t gives the District Court exclusive
jurisdiction in actions on which the sum
or value of the thing in controversy shall
be $500 or upwards. OF course, that ex-
cludes any jurisdiction in the courts of
Justices OF the Peace, and limits their
jurisdiction as far as it relates to the sub
jects mentioned-that is, in which the
sum or value OF the thing in controversy
shall be $500. The sum referred to here,
OF course, relates to value, and
DOES NOT RELATE TO IMPRISONMENT,
And the value OF the thing in controversy,
OF course, relates to something. 1t would
hardly be said that the Imprisonment of
the person was thing. The real
controversy in this case is as to
whether the defendant is guilty OF the
conduct charged, and inasmuch as it
involves the imposition of fine, it may
be said that the fine to the extent of $500
is in controversy, and so far as it relates
to the imprisonment, it may be said that
the liberty of the person is in controversy
but that, don't think, would be reached
by the words "in which the sum or value
OF the thing in controversy shall be $780,"
/ There is another provision of this same
section:
",rhe jurisdiction heretofore conferred
upon Justices of the Peace by the Organic
Act of said Territory is extended to all cases
where the debt or sum claimed shall be less
than $780,"
That extends the jurisdiction to all
cases when the debt or sum claimed shall
be less than $500, but has no reference
to misdemeanors, and it is argued, with
good deal OF force, that it is unreason-
able to assume that Congress should have
intended to limit, should have limited,
the fine to $500 and permitted the court
to take jurisdiction OF cases where
THE IMPRISONMENT NIGHT De SIX MONTHS
1t seems that the imprisonment was Of
more importance than the fine, but the
statute don't refer to ito the imprison-
ment-so that the imprisonment in this
class of cases, misdemeanors, is not in
cluded within it. Then it is said that il
there is no limitation upon this power,
the Territorial Legislature, that it may
give Justices Of the Peace general juris.
diction in all criminal cases but / should
be disposed to hold, and | presume that
the courts would have no hesitation in SO
holding, ii the Legislature should attempt
to give Justices of the Peace jurisdiction
in murder cases, or in cases of felony
that it would be without any authority
because the history of these courts, as
Justices OF the Peace, is without prece.
dent, such rs that, in this country par.
ticularly. | presume that it can nc
where be found where n Territorial OF
State law OF any Legislature has given
Justices of the Peace
The courts would appeal on the same
principle as is applicable to the act OF the
| Territorial Legislature which attempts tc
give probate courts general jurisdiction in
all cases. They hold from the analogies Of
the Organic Act that the act relates to
courts in Utah, and from the general his.
tory OF that court that it would not be
presumed that Congress intended to give
the Territorial Legislature the power tc
provide that probate courts might have
| jurisdiction in all cases that the jurisdic-
ton OF those courts was defined and they
were never regarded as courts of genera
jurisdiction and the same reason would
apply to jurisdiction OF Justices of the
| Peace.
THE IMPORTANT QUESTION HERE
On this point is as to whether there is q
precedent for this action OF the Territorial
Legislature. Without having examined
the various acts of the Legislatures OF the
different States, am of opinion that il
would be found, il so examined, that in
some States they have jurisdiction OF mis-
demeanor where the punishment is by
line and imprisonment; in others theii
jurisdiction would be confined &c
such cases, misdemeanors, as was
simply punished by fine, hui
in other it would be found
think, that justices of the peace
have jurisdiction in cases where the pun,
ishmcnt is by fine and imprisonment. II
an examination OF this question were IL
be made, it would be found | think, thai
OF misdemeanors of the various States o
this country, the villages have iurisdic,
ton oil the ollense OF keeping bawd,
houses and residing in bawdy houses, and
| nl lLnnnnnIin mn Lnu.l.. l........... - :