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


) case, and inasmuch as this party was no
indicted by grand jury, the proceeding
against him is illegal.
, The reading of this section would seen
to be in conflict, the literal meaning o.
the word would seem to be in conflict
, with the provision of the statute giving
justices of the peace jurisdiction of mis-.
, demeanors, because the Supreme Court
of the United States has held that the
District Courts are invested with
COMMON LAW AND CHANCERY JURISDICTION,
And that that includes all classes of cases,
and it is substantially so held by the
judges in the case of Ferris against
Higley, Goth Wallace, on page 381. The
court says:
''The common law and chancery jurisdic-
ton here conferred on the District and Su-
preme Courts is Jurisdiction very ample
and very well understood. 1t includes al
most every matter, whether of civil OF crimi-
nal cognizance which can be Irrigated in a
court of justice. The jurisdiction of the
Justices of the Peace is specifically limited
as regards the moneyed value on which it
may decide, and of the exclusion of matters
Courts it is only said that part
of the judicial power of the Terri
| tory shall be vested in them.
But we hold that the acts of the legis-
lature are not the only law to which we
must look for the powers of these Territor
ial courts. The general history of our juris
| prudence and the Organic Act itself are also
| to be considered, and any act of the Terri
| torial legislature inconsistent with the latter
| must be held void. We are of the opinion
| that the one we have been considering is
inconsistent with the general scope and spirit
of that act in defining the courts of the
Territory, and In the distribution of ju-
dicial power amongst them, inconsistent
with the nature and purpose of probate
court as authorized by that act, and moon
sistent with the clause which confers upon
the Supreme Court and the District Courts
general Jurisdiction in chancery as well as
at common lew. The fact that the judges
of these latter courts are appointed
by the Federal power, paid by
that power-that other officers of
these courts are appointed and paid in like
manner-strongly repels the idea that Con-
gress, in comforting on these courts all the
powers of courts of general jurisdiction,
both civil and criminal, intended to leave
to the Territorial Legislature the power to
practically evade or obstruct the exercise of
those powers by comforting precisely the
same jurisdiction on courts created and ap-
pointed by the Territory
1t is unquestionable, 1 suppose, that
the Territory would not have the right to
GUST the District Court of this right to try
all cases. Jurisdiction is by act of Con-
gress, but the question arises whether
these two provisions cannot stand to-
gether. The rule is, where different acts
of the Legislature are passed at the same
session or different sessions, where they
relate to the same subject, that they
should be harmonized unless they
are so opposed that they are ir-
reconciliable. Now, the language is, call
public offenses triable in district courts
except cases appealed from Justices
courts, must be prosecuted by indict-
ment." The construction I am disposed
to give this is to hold that all offenses
commenced in the district court and tri-
able in it,
BE COMMENCED BY INDICTMENT,
And it don't apply to those cases where
a justice OF the peace has Jurisdiction
that those are, cases where the suit is
commenced and triable in the
Justices court, and are only triable
IN the District Court by appeal, and that
IN that way both provisions stand to- 1
gether, and am of opinion that that is
The proper construction to give this act.
am of opinion that the District Court
and the Justices court have concurrent
in this class of offenses. and
having concurrent jurisdiction, the one
hat gets jurisdiction first
Is THE ONE TO TRY THE CASE. I
There was another point raised with !
aspect to the constitutionality of This law +
! was held that the Constitution gives to
ne deiendant IN case of this character I
ne right to an Indictment. Article five
the amendments to the Constitution is
s follows:
No person shall be held to answer for a
apltai or otherwise Infamous crime, unless o
n presentment or Indictment of Grand :
ufy, except IN cases arising in the land or :
avail forces" etc.
This keeping of a bawdy house, or re-
ortlng to or frequenting it, don't think
as ever been held as an Infamous crime:
may be IN the estimation of some, but
he courts have not so held it, because
ertainly this class of offenses have been
led since the foundation of the Govern
lent-ever since this Constitution went
ITO force in the United States. I don't
INK this provision applies to this
tense. Section six provides: =
II" u all criminal prosecutions, the accused r.
AL enjoy the right to speedy and public u
lai by an impartial jury of the State and
strict wherein the crime shall have been
which district shall have been
eyously ascerta1ned of law, and to be in or
rmed of the nature and cause of the ac- Gf
sat1on; to be confronted with the wit GS
sses,' etc. WV Ce
Inns is quite comprehensive In all
lmlnal cases 'the accused shall eniov
e right to a speedy and public trial"
lere is no question of what the common p-
" jury means-a jury of twelve men /: IN
It am of opinion that this statute. at
'st in some of the courts, has been held So,
apply not to these inferior misdemean- rat,
J. But If a jury of twelve men-a ant
nmon law jury-and it is presumed
1t that kind of a jury is referred to.
less this belongs to the inferior class of Off
sdemeanors, when jury of six can .
it. If the justice of the peace has
lsdictlon of the case and is authorized
jury-though the statute
y say it is six men,
IF THE DEFENDANT CLAIMS TWELVE +
must have it, because the Constitu- "a
gives III W HlHl, ana the law limiting
number to six is utterly void, and he 81
1ld be entitled to jury OF twelve men. mos
don't think that would GUST the W
tice OF the Peace of his Jurisdiction. -
, next section is ~
In suits at common law, where the value TIL
controversy shall exceed $40, the right of
6y jury shall be preserved; and no fact
by jury shall be otherwise re-exam.
an any court of the United States. than
'rdlng to the rules of Common law
1t IS held that the fine here is $500, ~,
that therefore the party is entitled to TiI
Try OF twelve men fhan thou COZ, /;