Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1893-10-09
The WALDEN CASE.
DEuURRERro COMPLAINT ARGUED
The Entire Morning Consumed In Law.
yer' Talk. 80 The Ruling OF the
Court Against the Registrar.

Court Against the Registrar.
The registration injunction suit Of
Thornton Va Walden, which has been
on and OIL The iapis In JUICE Bartch's
court from time 10 time during the last
ten days, came up this morning In real
earnest.
The plaintiff was represented By
Judge Powers, Attorneys Harris, Arm.
strong aud MUCalium; the defendant
by Attorneys lie Gfande Young, W..
II. Dickson anu Judge Judd.
At the outset Judge Powers inter.
posed on two points; nrst, by
stating that the plaintin was
a voter in the Fret precinct,
that his name was on the let
last year, that the registration officer,
In making his rounds, did not Mud
rhornton;ihat oil the voters who were
discovered had cross placed opposite
their names, that those who were not
found were not 70 indicated, were NJ.
sumed 10 be erased, anu their names
were omitted igOm the new let. That,
Counsel claimed, was not mn excuse.
The statute, he said, required the
registration officer 10 erase the name
when making ilis rounds. No cahnlis.
tic sign was sufficient, the law briug
that man could 40 10 the registration
~
nuu " his name had bsen stricken
of and have Il replaced u
wrongiully omitted. Secondly, couu.
Hel pointed out that the Lugisiatufo iu
| 1892 passed an act amending the regis.
uati0n law, 10 as 10 make II appliciblv
only ~ far A. house 10 house canvass
anu tue ensure OF names were con.
| curned to the year 1892 They struck
| cut the wOrds to tie elect that at
should be done each year" anu amend.
ed by substituting therefor that "il
should be done IN 1872" Hence couu.
sci insisted that the registration ofilcerH
had no authority 10 make a house ~
house cAuvhss or power 10 erase any
names from the list All the power
they possessed was TO sit together a.
they did last week, add new names,
make new lists aud hear challenges.
Attorney lie GrunIo Young then
proceeded 10 argue the demurrer to
complaint. He insisted that there wa.
mil oindet 0f parties plaintiff in this
case, anu that three or four persons
could not sue together In n Joint action
for an alleged Individual wrong, done
TO each ore. Counsel further argued
that the code did not change the Tulei
ot equity Ia regard to that. A joint
tort could always be prosecuted IN .
Joint name, but where II was a case oI
Individual wrong application must BE-
made individually. Btsides the par
ties clntending had not set forthl wheT,
they actually re,iied In any one case
Counsel quo Ell largely ffomauthOritie',
ms did also Attorney Armstrong,
whose argument followed that OF Mf,
Young.
MIR. Armstrong, In his reply, urged
that the statute SLOWED them 10 bTing
their action ia behalf Of Others a. well
ms the principal plAlnllfi where all hau
common or general interest, or where
the parties concerned were numerous
A. 10 the latter, IL was not necessary
10 name them.
The wordy wnr Of counsel simply Cd
the demurrer had consumed the entif,
morning, aud at 1850, by which tim,
Judge Bartch had become rather im
patient at the long preliminary tilh
which had been made, anu Hug
geslcd that the attorneys hsd bettcl
call their testimony without ske!ching
out the arguments any further. A.,
however, the Judge declined TO rule OI
the demurrer until D.. M, the cour
adjourned until that hour.
When the court assembled this after
noon Judge Hattch said lie did no
think that toe matter AZ 70 the voter
GENERALLY was sufficient plea undel
the statute and As 10 that part VI TIT
complaint the demurrer was sus
tanned. As 10 the plaintiff In the sui
the demurrer would be ovorfuled.
Attorney lie Grand Young thei
proceeded 10 argue anu cite authorities
bearing upon the main question, AM
Attorney Armstrong replied.
Judge Bartoh, In giving his decision
said the material question here was Al
90 the intention o: the legislature
whether or not 1t intended TO strik,
out the words "eAch year" ami there
by limit this law TO toe one feglstTa
ton. In the construction Of stAtut,
the sections must always be- construed
together II possible, 80 as 10 give effsc
10 each section. He thought the plain
inference OF the law was that tn,
registration WIS directed TO be made
In that year aud also eacl
succeeding year, In the manner there
In provided; that tho wofls re .orrcl
to were Included through mad
verienct; that the law In that respect
stood az It did before, and the court ~
held. He thought the registrars shou d
DO some affirmative act IN regard
10 these names they passed
from house 10 house, 20 thai
there could be- no mistake. His honor
was Of the opinion that the registrars
did not have this right to strike thu
names Of voters from the list after TIA,
lists were made up in the house to
house canvass, and he 80 ruled.
The temporary Injunction thus be-
comes permanent In regard 10 the
Thornton case,