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 ResborOushi
OPINIONS FILED IN COURT.
A Number OF Important Cases De.
eided by the Judges.

~ thE duuEHN.
: Chief Justice Zane and Assoeiat
Justices Henderson, Anderson an,
blackburn occupied the bench a
the opening Of the Supreme Cour
session this morning.
Judge Zane ANNOUNCED that tn,
prayer Ut Nsts T. nid, for per
mission 10 sue the receiver in til,
Church ease was granted.
NJ. y. Stone and Graham F
Putnam were admitted as mem.
bers Of the bar.
In the suit Of Boyd Park ct al. We.
Lucy NJ. Higbee, the Judgment oil
the district court at Ogden was
affirmed, anu an appeal laken to the
United States Supreme Court.
In the case Of Sarah J. kershaw
ct al, vs.. F. II. Dyer, ct al, ON a
rehearing, the former decision Of the
Supreme Court was reversed, and
the decision Of the Ogden court was
sustained.
In the case Of l.. 4. Scott Elliot
vs.. Geo. &. WhitmOre, ct al, the
decision OF the court at Ogden was
affirmed.
IN the suit Of Samuel +. Vance
ct al. ". ioha II. whalon, for
breach OF contract, appealed from
the third district. the decision Of
the court below was reversed. An
appeal was taken 10 the Supreme
Court Of the United States and
bond fixed at $4,000.
In the ,ase Of Wm. GlaSsmau ".
Mary O'DonueI, 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 Thini District
Court was modified 80 as to allow
the Crescent company time 10 pay
the judgment awarded.
The application of q. w. Bartch,
probate Judge Of salt Lake County,
for an order requiring County Clerk
Cutler To issue warrant for Judge
Bartch's salary rs county supeFin-
tendent OF public affairs, was denied
on the ground that the county court
had no right to create the office.
In thee OF the People ". Joseph
W. Fairbanks, indicted ut Provo for
assault with n deadly weapon with |
intent 10 DO bodily harm, made OF /
Russell Kelly, in Sewer County,
Feb. 10, 1880, the district court held |
that the Indictment was not good, |
and the prosecution appealed. The |
Supreme Court affirmed the decision |
II the court below,
In the case Of the People ". John |
Parman, Of a similar nature to that
against Joseph W. Fairbanks, a
Orier was entered
In the ease Of Alma ShOshOnetz 4
-. Francis l.. Campbell and l.. b.
ADAMS, involving the value Of -
sayuss ponies, judge Zane filed the
IpIni0n OF the court, which aiiiTms
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 1t
'r0vO, the decision Of the court be-
NV was reversed, and new trial
ordered.
a decision was rendered IL the 1
;ase Of the United States - &. &.
\. Christensen. Judge Anderson
n delivering the opinion 81 the
-ouTi. said: THE defendant was
indictel iJT unlawful cOhahitation,
was tried and convicted. He moved
iOr q new trial upon the ground,
among others, Of misconduct II the
Jury tending 90 prevent a fair aud
Tue consideration Of the case, h3scc
upon aliidavits, showing that one
John Harris, who was ono Of the
2etit jury which convicted him, was
IN the grand jury which found the
Indictment, and that the fact WIS
not known 10 him or his counsel
Intll after the verdict. And
nat the juror stated falsely
On his ruiz dire that he had not
ormed Dr expressed an unqualified
1pinion a. to the guilt " Innocence
D! the accused Of the offence charged.
The motion was sustained and
new trial granted, and the | uited
States excepted - the ruling Of the
Court and now proseCutes this APP
peal from the order Of the Court
granting q new trial.
The judge then reviewed the case
1t length and said:
= ..H.a....HHH.v. g.. gHu.sNH q !
Is raised in tins case, Is not like
merely technical disqualficatiOns,
such rs alienage. nOn-residence aHd
the Ike. which DO not tend 70 i'm
peach the fairness ami impar;iality
II the jury. 10 j. possibly true that
Inc juror in this case had no opinion
At the time Of his examination rs 70
Inc guilt or innOcenceOft the aCcus ID;
ne may have forgotten that he was
ln the grand jury that found the
he may have voted
,gainst finding the Indictment, or
nay have been absen. when IL !
vas found, rs twelve OF the fl
cen jurors constitute a quorum
and may transact business, hut the
Of the law are all 10
he contrary, and in the absence Of
my showing 70 that effect, he must
,e presumed 10 have participated In
he finding Of the Indictment ami
o have formed an opinion as to the
quilt or innocence OF the defend
INT. IL might be possible also,
wen If the juror had formed
In uuualifiei belief OF the |
guilt from the evidence
admitted 10 the grand jury, 10
-hange that opinion, by evidence at
he trial, IL he were a man OF can
Tor and intelligence. But the de-
eudant has a right to be tried by
N impartial jury. a juror who.
citing ON his own oath as a grand
JUROR and upon the sworn testimony
/ witnesses, hiss already formed an
pinion as TO the Defendants guilt
nd has s0,emnly accused him of
rhine. should not bs deemed an
impartial or proper juror %
~ him. Having served ON
he grand jury which found
he Indictment, and having
ormed or expressed an unqualified
opinion or belief that the prisoner Is
utility or not guilty Of the oilense
.hargcd, are each a ground OF chal-
engc 10 n juror Tor implied bias
Comp. Laws, lSSs, vol. =, sec. jD32.
and 81, and where the
lccusei properly examines the jGr- 8
~ concerning their qualifications,
nd they 10 not answer truly, he is
hereby not only deprived Of his
light OF challenge for cause, hut
nay also b. prevented from eNer-
Using his right Of peremptory chal-
euge. II, in such case, a defend
MT ...iIInIIL -I...-li--nnra. nm his r.arf | {