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

his court, he has no Jurlsulctioh vi ''is
case, and inasmuch rs this party was nor
indicted by grand jury, the proceeding
against him is illegal.
The reading of this section would seem
to be in conflict, the literal meaning OF
the word would seem to be IN coniilcC
with the provision Of the statute giving
justices OF the peace jurisdiction oil 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 3Sl. Inc
court says:
"The common law and chancery jurisdic-
ton here conferred on the District and Su-
preme Courts is n jurisdiction very ample
and very we'll understood. 1t includes. al
most every matter, whether of civil or crimi-
nal cognizance which can be litigated in
court of justice. The jurisdiction OF the
Justices of the Peace is specifically limited
as regards the moneyed value on which IL
may decide, and of the exclusion of matters
concerning real estate. OF the Probate
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 Terr1tor-
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
| n,,I 10, Il tr,I, tttnt, of If-
dicial power amongst them, inconsistent
with the nature and purpose of probate
| court as authorized by that act, and incon
sistent with the clause which confers upon
the Supreme Court and the District Courts
general jurisdiction in chancery as well as
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-strongy 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, L 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 IT.
reconciliablc. Now, the language is, call
public offenses triable in district courts
except cases appealed from Justice
courts, must be prosecuted by indict-
ment." The construction / am disposed
to give this is to hold that all offenses
commenced in the district court and tri-
able in it,
SHOULD BE COMMENCED BY INDICTMENT,
And it don't apply to those cases where
q 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-
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
jurisdiction in this class of offenses, and
having concurrent Jurisdiction, the one
that gets Jurisdiction first
Is THE ONE TO TRY THE CASE.
There was another point raised with
respect to the constitutionality of this law
1t was held that the Constitution gives to
the defendant in a case of this character
the right to an indictment. Article five
OF the amendments to the Constitution is
as follows:
No person shall be held to answer for a
capital or otherwise infamous crime. unless
on a presentment or indictment of n Grand
Jury, except in cases arising in the land OF
naval forces" etc.
This keeping OF a bawdy house, or re.
sorting to or frequenting it, don't thinl,
has ever been held as an Infamous crime
1t may be in the estimation of some, but
the courts have not SO held it, because
certainly this class of offenses have been
tried since the foundation OF the Govern.
ment-ever since this Constitution went
into force in the United States. | don't
think this provision applies to this
offense. Section six provides:
SIN all criminal prosecutions, the accused
shall enjoy the right to speedy and public
.hi ~ uii iuphltlul Jury OF tnc Otute unG
district wherein the crime shall have beer
committed, which district shall have beer
previously ascertained of law, and to be in
formed of the nature and cause of the nc
cusation; to be confronted with the wit
nesses," etc.
This is quite comprehensive In all
criminal cases "the accused shall enjoy
the right to speedy and public trial. Il
There is no question of what the common
law jury means-a jury of twelve men
but am OF opinion that this statute, nj
least in some. of the courts, has been held
to apply not to these inferior misdemean
ors. But ii jury of twelve men-a
common law jury-and it is presumed
that that kind OF jury is referred To-
unless this belongs TO the inferior class Of
misdemeanors, when jury of six can
try it, il the justice OF the peace has
jurisdiction OF the case and is authorized
to summon .jury-though the statute
may say it is six men,
IF THE DEFENDANT CLAIMS TWELVE
He must have it, because the Constitu
ton gives it to him, and the law limitinp
the number to six is utterly void, and he
would be entitled TO jury OF twelve men
But don't think that would GUST th,
Justice OF the Peace OF his jurisdiction
The next section is:
"In suits at common law, where the vain,
IN controversy shall exceed 500 the right OF
trial by jury shall be preserved: and no fac
tried by jury shall be otherwise re-exam
lhed IN any court of the United States thar
according to the rules of common law
II it is held that the fine here is $500