Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-07-12
A STORM is BREWING,
Dyer and Williams Object to Zane
and ResbofOush
OPINIONS FILED IN COURT
A Number Of Important Cases De.
eided by the Judges.

J. Judge Zane ANNOUNCED that Ia
: prayer Of Mari Il nit, for pei
d mission TO sue the receiver in til
d Church ease was granted.
+ NJ. y. Stone and Graham +
r Putnam were admitted as mem
: bers Of the bar.
b In the suit Of Boyd Park ct al, vs.
, Lucy NJ. Higbee, the Judgment 0
|. the district court at Ogden wa
( affirmed, and an appeal taken to tn,
United States Supreme Court.
In the case OF Sarah J. Kershav
, ct al, vs.. +. II. Dyer, Ct al, ON ;
rehearing, the former decision Of tn,
, Supreme Court was reversed, aud
} the decision of the Ogden court wa:
I sustained.
, In the case Of l.. a. Scott Elliot
vs.. Geo. G. WhitmOre, et a., the
decision OF the court at Ogden was
affirmed.
IN the suit 81 samuel +. Vance
ct al. ~. John II. Whalon, for
breach OF contract, appealed from
the third district, the decision OF
the court below was reversed. An
appeal was taken TO the Supreme
Court Of the United States and
bond fixed at $4,000.
In the Ease Of VIM. Glassmau vs..
Mary O'Donuen, from the third
district, the decision Of the court
below was affirmed.
In the case OF the Wasatch Min
Ing 80. vs.. the Crescent Mining
| Co.. the decree OF the Third District
Court was modified 20 as to allow
the Crescent company time 70 pay
the judgment awarded.
| The application Of G.. W. Bartch,
probate Judge Of salt Lake County,
for an order requiring County Clerk
| Cutler To issue a warrant Tor Judge
Bartch's salary rs county superin-
| tcndeut Of public affairs, was denied
on the ground that the county court
had no right to create the Office.
In thecase Of the People ". Joseph
| W. Fairbanks, indicted at Provo for
assault with n deadly weapon with
intent 10 10 bodily harm, made OH
Russell Kelly, in Sewer County,
Feb. -, 1890, the district court held
that the Indictment was not good,
and the prosecution appealed. The
Supreme Court affirmed the decision
Of the court below,
In the case Of the People ". John
Parman, Of a similar nature to that
against Joseph w. Fairbanks, q
similar order was entered.
IN the ease OF Alma ShoshOnetz
-. Francis L. Campbell and l.. b.
Adams, involving the value Of -
=ayuse ponies, judge Zane filed the
,pini0n OF the court, which aifirms
the decision Of the district court at
ogden.
In the case Of Wolf Marks and
Anna Marks ". W. II. Gunner, ct
al, appealed from the district court al
,'rov0, the decision Of the court be-
ow was reversed, and 4 new trial
ordered.
\ decision Wa rendered IL the
use Of the United States y. {. &. |
\. Christensen. Judge Anderson
IN delivering the opinion % the /
,0uTj. said: The defendant Vas
indicted ioT unlawful cOhabitation,
vas tried ami convicted. He moved |
Tor 4 new trial upon the ground, !
among others, Of misconduct u the |
Jury tending % prevent a fair aud |
Tue consideration Of the case, based |
upon a,lidavit-, showing that one |
John Harris, who was one u the |
1c.it Jury which convicted him, was 4
Jn the grand jury which found the |
indictment, and that the fact was /
not known 10 him or his counsel |
Until after the verdict. And I
nat the juror stated falsely l
On his roi- arc that he had not 1
Ormed or expressed an unqualified ]
,piuiou A. to the gui.t Or innocence |
o: the accused Of the offence charged.
The motion was sustained ani n
uew trial granted, and the United /
States excepted - tine ruling uI the /
Court ami now pr0secutes this ap-
peal from the order ~ the Court /
granting q new trial"
The Judge then reviewed the case
at length and said:
IAN objection 20 juror. such a.
Is raised in tins case, Is not Ike
merely technical disguAiiicatiJns,
such as alienage. u0u-reSidence and
the Ike. which do not tend 20 i'm
peach the fairness ami impariiality 1
II the jury. IL j. possibly true that
the juror in this case had no opinion
Il the time OF his examination as %
the guilt or innocence f the accu- ii;
ne may have forgotten that he was
IN the grand jury that found the
Indictment: he may have voted
against finding the indictment, or
may have been ah>en. when il !
was found, II twelve OF the IF
cen jurors constitute a quorum
ami may transact business, hut the
yresumutiUus Of the law are ali TO
he contrary, and in the absence Of
any showing to that effect. he must
Nc presumed ID have participated IN
the finding Of the Indictment and
n have formed an opinion n To The
guilt or innocence OF the defend
ant. Il might be possible also,
even if the juror had formed
an unqualified belief Of the
defendants guilt from the evidence
submitted 10 the grand jury. TO
.hange that opinion, by evidence at
the trial, II he were a man Of can
Tor and intelligence. But the de-
PENDANT has "A right 10 be tried by
an impartial jury. a juror who.
lCting on his own oath as a grand
Juror and upon the sworn testimony
II witnesses. hiss already formed an
opinion as 70 the Defendants guilt
tnd has s0,gmnly accused him Of
crime. should not ns deemed an
impartial or proper juror 10
try him. Having served ON
the grand jury which found
the Indictment, and having
formed or expressed an unqualified
opinion or belie: that tine prisoner is
guilty or not guilty Of the ofIense
charged, are each ground Of chal-
lengc % a juror lur implied bias
Conn. Laws. SIS. vol. =, sec. .jNI2.
subdivisions land s., ami where the
accused properly examines the jEr-
Jrs concerning their qualifications,
aud they 10 not answer truly, ne is
thereby not only deprived OF his
right Oi challenge for cause, hut
may also b. prevented from eNer-
cisiug his right Of prrsmpt0ry ch1l-
leuge. IL. in such a ease, a defend
ant, with0u, negligence on his part,
Is denied new trial,ith greatest
injustice might be done. In this
case the names OF grand Jurors did
not appear on the Indictment, the
law only requiring that the name Of
the former should appear, and there
was nothing 70 notify defendant that
the Juror had been on the grand
Jury that found the Indictment, nor
10 put him on inquiry. Ii j. true,
If he hal searched the record Of the
Court lac would have ascertaineI
that fact and It would have been
commeniab.e prudence and dill
gence 10 have done -. but !:
We 10 moi think his failure 10 DO -
4. -. Il. D