The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-02-03

| Supreme Court yesterday. In the
morning, TIE matter OF the application
OF Q. NJ. Nokes, for release from the
Penitentiary, was decided in the fol-
lowing opinion, which was read by
Judge Boreman:
HE GETS NO COPPER.
This is an application for writ oil
habeas corpus, and for a discharge
thereon from prison. By consent the
whole matter is heard upon the appE-
cation for the writ, the facts stated in
the petition being admitted as true by
the district attorney. The petitioner
| Charles NJ. Nokes, was, on the 18th day
of October, 1888, sentenced by the Dis
trict Court to imprisonment in the Pen
itentiary for the term of eighty-fve
days, snd to pay fine OF $3.50. The
eighty-fve days would, if there were no
deductions, expire on the 18th of Janu-
ary, 1889. But the petitioner claims
that he is entitled to deductions at the
rate OF i've days per month. Ii this
were correct, the terms of sentence woul0
have expired on the 3lst of Deem Der
1888; and the time which the law re-
quires that he should be imprisoned
solely for non-payment of the fine of
$3.50 would begin to run on the 31st day
of December, 1888, and it being thirty
days, would expire on the Both day of
January, 1882.
On The 31st of January. 1889. the
petitioner. under provisions of the
statute GU. s. Rev. st., secs. 1912 and
$780, applied to United States Com
missioner Norrell for his discharge from
prison, ana showing that his behavior
in the Penitentiary was good, that he
was unable to pay the fine, that he had
no property to the amount of $40 over
and above that which is exempt from
execution, and claiming that he had
served his. tsrm of sentence and the
thirty days additional. After hearing,
Commissioner Norrell denied the APP
plication for discharge from prison.
ThereuOon the petitioner has applied to
tlis court on the writ OF habsGS corpus
Whether he is entitled to his dis
charge or not depends upon whether
his case comes within the purvieW OF
the statute as to deductions for good
DChdNAOLs hob oAo ~ 70 u Oob4s Alh
of 1888, p. 1922 reads as follows:
'(s5268 sec. 2. Each convict sen.
fenced for any period less than life
who hiss not been guilty of breach of
the rules of discipline of the prison,
shall be entitled to e reduction of the
period of sentence, as hereinafter pro-
Yided. F" etc.
"(s5369) Sec. 8. The following deduc-
tons shall be allowed to conYicts for
good conduct: From the term of SEN
fence ot three months, fifteen days;
from term of six months, thirty days;
from a term of one year, two calendar
MONTHS" and then follows detail of
the amounts of deductions for greater
terms of sentence.
'(s5270.1 Sec. f. In all terms of SEN
tence termin ating Immediately between
the terms hereinbefore specified, the
deductions shall be proportionate to
those named in the foregoing section"
The section first quoted (s526S) de-
clares that eech convict shall be entitled
TO reduction of the period of SEN
tence, las hereinafter provided" The
next section (s5269) does not provide
for reduction where the period of SEN
teuce is less than three months. And the
subsequent section (s5270) provides for
reductions only In terms OF sentence
terminating intermedlately between
those terms hereinbefore specified"
As there is no reduction provided in
any prior section where the term Of
mprisonmentisles less than three months,
the sentence imposed upon the petit
toner could not have been sentence
terminating intermediary between
those terms herein before specified"
. norninn within tho
provision of the statute. If we could
apply the spirit of the statute in the
case, the petitioner could be discharged,
but we are bound by the language OF
the statute, 1t being plain and imam
biguous. The case of the petitioner
does not come within the statute, and
he isl not entitled to his discharge. He
is remanded to the custody OF the mar
shall.
Sandford, CD, Henderson. j., and
Judd, j., concur.
THE DECKERT MEYERS SULPHUR SUIT.
The arguments in the case Of the
Utah Mining and Manufacturing Com
pany, of Cleveland, Ohio. VS.. the Deck
ert and Meyers Sulphur Company, next
occupied the attention of the court.
Il6y were uI.SneQ huO BIG Soo0 SUD
mitted later in the day.
THE ZANE DYER CONTROVERSY.
During the morning hour brief re-
cess was taken and the Zane
Dyer controversy was called ur.
Both Judge Marshall and Mr.. Critch-
low had previously filed with the
court their reasons for desiring to be
released. In referring to the matter,
Judge Judd said: In reference to q
matter that has been pending before
the court, will say that we have con-
sidered with all the care of which we
are capable the matter of the appoint
ment of attorneys to represent the
court in the investigation of the charges
against the receiver, and will now dispose
| of these matters once for al. We are
satisfied there is nothing in the state
ments made by the attorneys which in
any way disquali6es them from acting,
and we authorize them to proceed as
directed. Judge Hardness has handed
to the court q statement in which he
saws that the names of some fifty wit
nesses have been handed to him by the
petitioners, some of these witnesses re-
| eide in the CITY. others in remote parts