The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-12-09

According to announcement Judge
Bartch yesterday morning delivered
his decision in the Pratt habeas corpus
case in which his honor held that the
Z chief as an officer was not privileged
under the statutes and was in contempt
for refusing to answer. and that the
court had jurisdiction to commit him,
but that the record on which the COM
mittment was based was irregular for
the reason that the foreman of the
grand jury had not stated to the court
! that the grand jury desired the ques-
Zion answered and that the proper
spokesman Of the grand jury is the fore
1iian through whom it must speak.
The demurrer to the petition was over
snled, the order Of commitment re-
%oked and the prisoner discharged from
the custody of the United States mar
shall and remanded back to the grand
jury, which body might, if they so de-
sired, PROFOUND TO him the question in
a proper way and if the witness re-
fused TO answer then they could report
to the court through the foreman.
The court room was crowded at 10
o'clock with the general public and
there was a large attendance of the
members of the bar. In response to the
order Of the court Chief Pratt was
brought in and took a seat beside his
counsel, Judge Powers and Attorney
Harmed Pratt.
The Judgment.
His honor then proceeded to deliver
his Judgment as follows:
IN the matter of the application of
8
/ city, for a writ of habeaS corpus I
might state that there has been some
comment in regard to the granting of
that writ by the court who committed
the prisoner for contempt. When the
case first came before the court it was
in the midst of another trial-of other
business-and 1 then took it for granted
that it was simply a matter as to
whether or not the question was pro-
perry prOpOunded TO the witness and for
the decision of the court thereon. The
matter came up in an Informal way
The point was afterwards raised as to
the irregularity of the proceeding, and
Tor that reason, as well as that the
question is one of great Importance as
afTecting the administration of justice,
as 10 the enforcing the orders of this
court, l thought ii best to allow the
writ, and so have the proceedings re-
viewed. in order to get a full under
standing. thereon, the case having as
sumed the shape where the officer re-
fused to answer the question put to him
before the grand jury.
The main points at issue were
whether the court had jurisdiction to
commit the defendant and was the COM
mitment legal? Various issues were
raised by counsel on both sides but the
case so far as its legal aspect was con-
cerned was covered by section 1878,
subdivision 5. compiled laws OF Utah.
relying on which counsel for the
prisoner claimed that the question was
privileged. The statute referred to
read: "A public officer cannot be ex-
amined as to communications made to
him in his official capacity when the
public interests would suffer by the dis
closure"
Was Not Privileged.
THE question then was whether or not
this witness was privileged by the
statute? The witness held a public
office, that of chief of police OF this
city, and he claimed that in the dis
charge of his duties he promised the
woman involved that he would not re-
veal her name. From his own state
ment and from the facts as they APP
peared to the court ne knew the name
of the party but had promised that he
would not reveal it.
His honor said he took it that this
statute did not shield an officer under
such circumstances. The promise was
unnecessary in order to get the infor-
nation. If it had turned out that the
information could not have beer OBJ
tanned except upon the promise of the
officer that it should be kept secret, he
thought, the court would be very
strongly inclined at least to sustain him
inthat promise. But under the prevail
f1cer was justified in refusing 10 answer
question before the grand jury would
be to hold that he might even stand up
and see murder committed in cold
blood, and yet for some reason promise
the offender that he would never re-
veal his name; he might then go before
a court Of justice or a grand jury while
investigating the crime, refuse 70 an
ewer, and the court would be poWerless
TO enforce its order. Such was nor che
law.
The Court Has Jurisdictien.
From a careful examination OF the
case. owing to its gravity, the bear
ing which it hac upon the community
and upon the court in future in the /
enforcement of its orders, he was con-
WINGED that this was no matter IN |
which the prisoner was privileged |
The question was too far-reaching for /
this court to entertain otherwise for
eae moment He took it, therefore, 1