Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1885-12-11
act of Congress limiting their jurisdiction


as the jurisdiction of Justice these cour
are limited by the act of Congress rela
ing to Utah; unless it should be found
was violation of the Constitution OF tt
United States, and so far as the jurisdi
ton is limited by the acts OF the Territ'
e rial Legislature, it would be valid if th
o Legislature had the power to pass a la
q so limiting it. The 9Th section of the AZ
referred to is as follows:
''That the legislative power of said Terr
tory shall extend to all rjghtful subjects {
legislation, consistent with the Constitutio
of the United States and the provisions c
I this Act.'
! Forbiddipg any law with respect to tn
real estate in the possession of OF tn
+ property of the United States, and provid
. ing that the Legislative Assembly AM
the Governor shall submit to the Con
gress of the United States the laws passe,
by them, and if disapproved they shall b.
void. So that the question is as to wha
is the effect of the following language:
! "That the Legislative power of said Terri
tory shall extend to all rightful subjects O
legislation
As I have stated, the jurisdiction of jus
tees courts is arightful 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 8, of the
Act OF Congress approved June 23d, 1874
that also relates to jurisdiction to some
extent of these courts. The language is
''The 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 OF
boundaries of land or mines or mining
claims shall be in dispute, whatever their
value, except in actions for forcible entry or
forclble 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 SUBJ
jects mentioned 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 Gin which the sum or value
OF the thing in controversy shall be $780,"
There is another provision of this same
section:
''The 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 $500"
That extends the jurisdiction to all
cases when the debt or sum claimed shall
be less than $500, but has no reference
to mlsdemeanors, and it is argued, with |
a 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 MIGHT BE 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
Guided within it. Then it is said that if
there is no limitation upon this power,
the Territorial Legislature, that it may
give Justices OF the Peace general iuris-
fiction in all criminal cases; but should
De disposed to hold, and presume that
'he courts would have no hesitation in SO
holding, If the Legislature should attempt
% give Justices of the Peace jurisdiction
n murder cases, or in cases of felony.
hat 1t would be without any authority,
because the history of these courts, as [
Justices OF the Peace, is without prece-
lent, such as that, in this country par [
lcularly. presume that it can no
where be found where Territorial or
state law of any Legislature has given I
Justices of the Peace {
JURISDICTION IN CASES OF FELONY.
he courts would appeal on the same s
as is applicable to the act of the T
territorial Legislature which attempts to 9
I've probate courts general jurisdiction in = :
IL cases. They hold from the analogies of
ne Organic Act that the act relates to c
ourts in Utah, and from the general his n
Dry OF that court that it would not be
resumed that Congress intended to give .
he Territorial Legislature the power to n
rovlde that probate courts might have IT IT
In all cases; that the jurisdic- !.
on of those courts was defined and they 4 e
ere never regarded as courts of general !,
and the same reason would =. IL
'ply to jurisdiction of Justices of the !.
aace. VI
THE IMPORTANT QUESTION HERE II
n this point is as to whether there is a III
ecedent for this action of the Territorial m
legislature. Without having examined IL
e various acts of the Legislatures of the u
fferent States, | am Of opinion that it to
ould be found, if so examined, that in m
me States they have jurisdiction of mis-
meanor where the punishment is by n
re and imprisonment; in others their tif
risdiction would be confined to tn
CHI cases, misdemeanors, as was W.
nply punished bv fine. but p,
other it would be found. II
think, that justices of the peace II
We jurisdiction in cases where the pun
ment is by fine and Imprisonment. If
examination of this question were to m
made, it would be found, 1 think, that t IT,;
of the various States of inc
country, the villages have jurisdic- acc
OF the offense of keeping bawdv =
Uses and residing in bawdy houses, and
frequenting bawdy houses, and of an,
.nses by lewd and lascivious conduct. a i
Legislatures In some of the Sfotoc rpr