Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1894-01-12

crciH case wbrt,n b.. h. scott
Elliott wos plaiuiiuaud Wn. mofrih
u1ieHdnut Flo was tlciauuY. zen.
tnnCtd 90 fay Uue OF I l4I
cItts, Jho Inter uclng tnXOu ~ siaB.SI.
10 ieilult OF payment, however,
/ Mhiiwuir was ufupfgI Iu bt JAM.
ptEun.u lu tue c.uaiy J1ll, gi thu ratio
Of uuuu Ay Cox uBCu uuliHg 90 tht Hut.
Who 900 using iU uHy ur, hr fluI "a
bond Iur security Ci tnp money with "a
motion Cd. appeal uom tho conviction
anu jul Fmuuj, ami now brought hH
ort 90 uuu,hs corpus uHklug o. nu
released liCm tuu imri s0Hmpui Tine
principal grounds nH which The HIyi.
cation wa tased Wru-Ir.t tH.t
the appeal superseded thu Juugmgui
ald conviction, UuouJ, that ,lc l0Wrt
court had DJJrsi.c,i 100 90 ruuItr the
decree Ur uIu.sr ioy cIuvmpj became
tue cause was hr-t Iculug ia the
Firt district c.ut.; nuu, third, that the
court, UPON i.sU~u motion, transferred
the same 90 the ihilI district without
any uuln .uty. Therefore IttiiI.utr
al.rgud INT the COSTS were Illegally im.
pgfri us penalty without authority
" tho statute.
10 said ;boir honOrs On the course
OF very lengthy Upimoul, ihr court
hni Jurisdiction Of the pvuJu % Tie
defendant aud % the sul jTrt muUUf
uut 0i which the bllugtu contempt
arose, then the door i9r release by
means 90 witt oil hnboa- corpus was
closed, except Va case. where cEccas u
luri1IiciIuu was clearly uUptvuL II
900 Uut appuar that nuy molten Wls
INSIDE bon thn Third district court g.
ifantlur the cWr, Ihst court WA not
b0uni, Of ~ own molten, Go change
& e place @! trul and the usnt a
either party 10 rs she cnsu lu the Fret
dib'r.rt court was right that they
could waive. Their houob cunsldefud
the Third district court had Jurisdiction
pulh over tho subject matter OF the suit
anu tho PARTIES Thereto. Ina this Ctsr
tho contempt consisted ~ doing q i0i-
blddpn act that was MOI only Injurious
TO tho 0Ip,niie party Tut a contempt
u0uH violation OF tho eXufCss c0mmaui
u The court Tie lfuccls was there
fore criminal In its nature anu the
conviction vas properly followed by
the imposition u n iinoHud costa when
did not exceed tue SUN that the court
was authorized 10 Impose; ami tue
judgment was not excessive or uuCcf.
tain 90 % the period Of tho iuprltou-
mcnL In allowing tho appeal aud
tIpcreiyaB bond, tho ruiUi dibtfict
court expressly refused g. suspend the
injunction; the Injunction continued
In force nUu was net rendered iuUpur.
alive By tuu APPEAL or the giving Of the
bonn. The authorities bearing upon
the question as 10 the nght Ui "a
pais3n 30 appeal from judgment
% conviction IN "a contempt
proceeding seemed TO DO IN great cUu-
fusion; but UPON u careful determination
u would be- found that thia condition
resulted largely from the different pro-
visions Of the statutes b1afing upon
that question, aud NJ 10 whether Of
not the contempt charged was Of a civil
or criminal nature. IL vas ung uesliOu.
ably true that every superior court Of
record, vt common law, was the sole
Judge Ut contempt against ~ authority
aud diguity,uud the judgment OF every
such court In case o contempt, At conf
mon Law, was final AMI CJnclusiyt,aul
not reversible BY appeal or otherwise
unless specially EuthOrizod by statute. n
thiscOunuuliOna large nunberOiauthOr-
itl0s were cited. Under our statute, said
thulr h0u0ts, this ullcnse was one pub
lic In ~ nature, which tended 10 east
difcto1it upon the administration Of
public Justice. 10 would indeed seem
anomalous Tor an appellate court a.
have tho power 10 compel an inferior
court 10 punish q criminal contempt
an insuit 10 thejudge or n willul breach
ui peace Ia open court, wlliul diH0bt-
dieuce OF n lawful Oriet or judgment,
which such inferior court Lui lviused
TO punish, Or that u should have power
u review the action Of such court AMI
discharge one whom II had aIluuged
guilty Of fuch contempt The law
punished the oontemnot out Of 10 per-
sonal consideration for the iudgs; but
tue maintenance Of theaulh1rlty u the
judiciary was IN Indispensable 10 tbs eta.
bility Of the government. From an
examination Of the authorities their
hOnuu were satisfied that under our
statutes an appeal did not Ito 10 this
court from the judgment attempted 10 |
be- appealed from.
The petition for habeas corpus was
therefore deuitd, aud tho petitioner |
Temanded 10 tic custody Of the sheriff |
OF Salt Lake county, In compliance |
with the commitment Of tho Third |
district court.