The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-02-20
THE OGDEN REGISTRATION
Reasons Why the Petition for Re-
hearing Was Denied.

Our readers viii remember that Rich
ards & Rollap, of Ogden, made applica
ton for hearing in the, ease of Watson
vs.. Corey. Owing to the fact that
the Supreme Court could not meet be-
fore the late election, Judge Sanford
announced that a decision had beer
reached, and that an opinion denying
the application, would be filed at the
first sitting. The opinion on the motion
for reheRring was delivered yester-
day by Judge Boreman. It makes very
interesting reading, and for this reason
it is given in full below: 1.-The case, u
said Judge Boreman, twas decided al
the present term of this court, and the
appellant has applied for a rehearing
The Plaintiff states in his petition for q
rehearing, that this court, in the
decision rendered, failed to pass
upon the main question submitted, but
based the decision upon a question
which was not involved in the con
troversy except incidentally. If this be
true,
THE COUNSEL WERE pERELICT
in their duty and are to blame for any
supposed oversight, on the part of the
court. The oversight, if any existed,
was on the part of counsel and not of
the court. The case presented was
decided The whole argument of
counsel was devoted to an effort to
show that certain sections of the Terri
torial statute of 1888 in regard to the
incorporation of cities, gave the City
Council of Ogden City the power to
provide by ordinance for the register
ing and voting in wards. The court
held that those sections did not apply
to Ogden City. In the petition for re-
hearing, it is now claimed that the
power to PASS such an ordinance by the
City Council was obtained from the
old charter of the city and from the
general election law Of the Territory
and not from the Territorial statute of
1885 referred TO. Had counsel made
this statement to the court when the
case was called for argument, it would
have saved hours OF argument, it would
have saved much trouble and time to
the court, and it would have enabled
the counsel to have omitted twenty
eight pages of the plaintiff brief. It
does not appear that the question now
sought to be raised was referred to In
the lower court. In the ora argu-
AuoHb III kulS III NA6bGfCl
was laid upon it, and according TO our
recollection, no reference to the point
was made In the plaintiffs brief-2
document of thirty pages-the point
was not noticed until near the close,
within two pages of the end. The whole
of the brief, except those two pages,
was
DEVOTED TO THE QUESTION DECIDED
by the court; and that was treated by
counsel all through the case as the
main, if not the only, point in it. When
q case IS presented to the court wholly
upon one theory, and every other point
is omitted from the argument of coun-
sci, the court is never disposed to notice
a reference in the printed brief to some
other point. The rule is that if
counsel omit to notice a point, the
court will likewise omit to notice
it. A party must have his case
presented upcE one theory and when
that fails it cEnnot be pres ented upon a
different theory and one to which the
courts attention was not called. If q
party have what he deems an impor-
tant point, he should present it at the
appropriate time The court will not
hear a case by piecemeal, and upon an
application for rehearing will not con-
slider any point not presented on the
argument. The plaintiff in his petition
has shown no grounds for a reheariug,
and the prayer therefore is denied"