The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1888-06-05
THE THREE JUDGES.
Opening Of the June Term of
the Supreme Court.
A VERY IMPORTANT CASE
The Closing Hours of the egfsIatnre
Was the work Legally Done?
The Effect

day. There were but few members OF
the bar in attendance. The fol wing
disposition OF cases was made:
United States of America, respondent
IS. the late corpora ion OF the Church
of Jesus Christ of Lattsr-day Saints,
appellant; passed for the present.
United States of America. respondent
VS.. Ahe Perpetual Emigrating Fund
Company, appellants; same order.
United States of America, respond mt,
rs. Andrew J. Kershaw, appellant; set
fer Monday. the 11tti inst.
United States OF America, respondent
VS. Thomas f. Harris, appellant; set
for Wednesday, 9th.
United States of America, responi l.
ent, VS.. William G. Bredeneyer, ao-
pollant; passed for the present, 10 be
set down later in the term.
United States, respondent, vs. 7. r.
Cutler, app 3llant; set for 18Th
Abram Hopper, respondent vs. 7.
w. Bates, ct al. dismissed on motion
of plaintiff.
Crescent Mining Company, respond
ent, ". Wasatca Mining Company, APP
pellant; set for Sth.
Jacob z. Larsen, respondent, vs..
Utah q Northern Railway Com pany,
appellant; set for 18th
NJ. B. Buford, ct al, respondent, VS.,
john s. Houtz, ct. al, appellant; passe /
for the present.
Ralph a. Pidcock, respondent, vs..
Utah u Northern Railway Company,
appellant; set for 10Th.
WAS THE ACTION LEGAL?
According 10 previous arrangement,
the case of L. G. Hallen vs.. Nephi w.
Clayton, was the first called. 1t is an
important one, in that it investigates
the legality of all bills passed by the Ia, e
Legislature after midnight of the 8Ch
day Of March last. Among the bills so
passed and approved by the Governor,
was the one providing for the payment
OF jurors and witnesses, and creating
court commissioners. This takes from
the Territorial Auditor the power to
pay Jurors and Witnesses cartii-
Gates, and gives it 10 the CON-
missioners appointed under this a..
Halter received certificate for attend
ance as witness before the grand jury
and presented it for payment to Auditor
Clayton. This Official refused to pay it,
and referred Halter to Commissioned
Piper, who, he SAID. would pay it.
Haller thereupon send out a writ of
alternative mandamus, which ordered
tie auditor 10 either pay the scrip or
show cause why ne refused so to do.
Judge Sutherland appeared IN behalf
OF the auditor, and filed a motion to
quash the writ. on the ground
tnat it did not state facts sufficient to
constitute a canSe CT action. II com
mcGcing his argument, Judge
Sutherland said there were three
very important assumptions in the
writ. First That the witness was
eih ie1 to fees for attendance.
Second-That the auditor OF public
acc0unts was bound to audit it on the
certificate of a deputy clerk of the
Grand Jury. Third-That The law
passed by the late Legislature could not
DE enforced because il was void. Out
SIDE OF The statute, which the plaintiff
there is no statute in force
allowing fees TO witnesses n criminri
cases. There had been temporary
statutes in force before this one, but
they had ali been repealed and if Mr..
Halter has any claim to witness fees,
he must rest his claim upon the law IN
question. His position was inconsist-
ent. The certificate purported to be
issued by deputy clerk of the Grand
Jury-no such Office as clerk of the
Grand Jury was known TO the
law-much less than deputy
clerk; nobody could accept
his certificate as proof of any
thing; it is no proof-no more SO than
if Hailer had gone there himself One
OF the objections 20 this act is that these
commissioners we're Territorial officers,
and could not, therefore. be appointed
by the Legislature. Each one is ap-
pointed for certain district-they
were district officers; being such, the
Legislature had, by the seventh section
of the organic act, the right to put these
commission ers where it chose. The
next objection is that the law was
passed on the 10th-two days afte, the
Legislature had expired That was
against the record. 1t shows that the
law was passed and approved on the
8th. The law III regard to records is
that no allegation can impeach them,
or contradict anything they may Claim.
This act was enacted, was ap-
proved, and came into force dur
ing the sixty days given to the
Utah Legislature for making laws.
All the records on the subject show
that the law was passed during the
Legislative period; parole evidence is
not admis eble to overthrow what ap-
pears of record. He then referred the
court to several authorities. which bore
out his argument that an act of the
Legislature, properly enrolled and filed
by the Secretary of State was record,
and q record that the act had been
passed as enrolled. This act has upon
| It the signature of both the officers of
the assembly, had bae:a filed by the
Secretary of the Territory and by him
published among the others passed at
the same session. Therefore, it is 10 be
presumed that the Law was valid and
legal. The law itself and the journals
say thel law was passed on tie 3th = they
are the only records in tho ma ter
He had found nothing not IL harmony
with these cases, and he did not believe
that any authorities could be found
which would initiate them. The rec
ord was conclusive. andi corld not be
made to appear that the act VAS passed
at any other time. TIE question
was of such Importance that he hao
requested MIR. Marshall, vino vas q
mem Der of The Council at the time the
l. L i l.