The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1886-01-19
THE PRoHIBIToRY WRIT.


applied only where the usual method
of law are inadequate, and some yast
or pressing necessity demands its ex
ercise-such, for instance, as where
great public interest is being ruthlessl,
dissipated, or the financial welfare
the body polite is being unnecessaril.
squandered, and the prompt and pow
erful action of the superior courts l
needed to cheek the action OF the In
ferior, and probably inefficient and un
calculating tribunals is needed. Sucl
state of affairs is not, however, pre-
sumed on the contrary, every presump
ton, when the actual integrity
of a court, however humble, is assalleC
in such manner, is in favor OF the
body SO attacked. The very nature O.
the process going as it does so fal
beyond ordinary procedure, demand;
in the interest of justice and public
policy that some more than usually
strong reason be put forth before the
powers authorized to grant it can be
justified in so doing.
The case of the People against w. H.
Yearian came to a temporary collapse
in the Justices court yesterday through
the writ above spoken of. Among
other peculiar allegations in his petition
for the writ to the Supreme Court is
one to the effect that the person
who swore to complaint against him
in the trial court is Mormon, that the
court himself is a Mormon, while the
petitioner for the writ is a Gentle
This is in effect asking the superior body
70 take judicial cognizance of social dis
tinctions, which they partly do by
granting the writ on such showing,
no matter whatoIher grounds may have
been presented. 5El
Now, to unprecedented people who
calmly and quietly consider all the facts
IN this case, how does this whole matter
APPEAR Is it the appeal of one whose
rights are imperiled, in whose be-
halt justice is denied. who is
restrained of his liberty, or whose rights
N the courts are curtailed, hindered or
delayed? Does he plead innocence, and
thereupon show that his plea where he
is required to appear would not receive
due consideration and that thereby he
would be taken at a disadvantage? Is |
ne willing to allege partiality on the |
part of the justice, apart from the fact
that the said official is a member of a |
different church from that to which he |
belongs, and if he did. would that be !
good legal ground? The petitioner for
the writ says that the object of |
the proceeding against him is to
degrade and make him Infamous and !
not to subserve the purposes of
justice; yet nowhere does he make it
appear that he is working in the interest
of the public, while everywhere he
shows that he is aiming solely at the
concealment of the facts in the case in
order that he himself may escape the
penalty accruing through the appeal toll
which he has resorted.
Whatever may be thought of the
means by which convictions have been
accomplished and attempted in the pre-.
vailing raid against vice, as to their
being proper or impr- per, one thing is
eertain-that if accused persons are
innocent they ought to show it. When
ever man is accused of a loathsome
crime, he owes it to his family if he have
one, otherwise to himself, to be yinGi-
Gated as well as acquitted. While it
cannot be denied that all such persons
upon trial have the greatest right to all
the benefits granted by law and It's prac-
tice, it still follows that technical ac-
quittal is not always the verdict of the
people. The man who presides over a
household cannot afford to have such a
shadow hanging over his life and that
Of those who depend upon him when he {
has a defense upon the actual situ
alton of the case into which he 10 8
brought; as between him and the public 7
It is a question of absolute guilt or ac- {
ual innoeense. Technicalities are al. .
ways his resort'in the former instance.
hey are always beneath him and not i
escorted to in the latter. If the charges +
ire false, he can afford to saw with 7
the CALLED jade vince n
'ur withers are unwrung." .
In all this, we do not assume to pass
Judgment upon the defendant, favor
bly, or unfavorably He can take care
+ his own interests, and has gone
o a great length in that direction
lready; if he should escape through
be intervention of the Supreme Court.
7ell and good, and if he should not it
ill be no fault of his friends. That 50 :.
nusual and extraordinary a process as q,
be writ of prohibition should have been d
esorted to when the means of estab- =
shing innocense ara so much simpler
nd cheaper, is what we wonder at. If q
can stand it In such q manner, no ga
ne need complain.