Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1895-06-04
1gg SUPREME COURT.
,.,,, B,lOro the Judges at I0day'S
SESSION.
81, ,ohr W; smith, Accused OF
VI I,nlus Lc''rr rro" the Post
oGicf, Argusd.

The Supreme Court met IL O'CLOCK
Ibis morning ,,,,i., s.s TIM,
a.. limited states Of America,
u'..Dopdent. vs. sim Dugsin'' appel,
,'a,. an appeal from the Judgment Oh
, ,,,o garich in the Third district
s .Ssa thls case was called United
- - Attorney Judd stated that ho
.',,,dy to proceed, but the attorney
.,psIlast, "A. NJ. Warner was
y, II was therefore CONTINUED
brtho present.
The nsKt case called was That OF tue
ra,,.J states Of Amsrics,plaintiil anu
ssll.pt, Va John W. smith, de-
,ns.pt and rcsponicni. Appeal
n,m tho judgment VI Judge Batich
INC rbird District court.
ID s uV was indicted iof taking rom
un''st.tiice ut salt Lake CITY ON
Ws,eb 3 1894" ga certain le1Icf intended
=, src James W. smith, aiuttss,u ).
nv smith, salt Lake Guy UlaN, anu
~, men and willully, uuiaWiullyi
Confidently aud itloniouriy emnelL'r
.sIryuvort 10 his own use said Ioltsi
~ n ccflnin dfa { contained 10 sslu
i'ii,r.D etc. 10 this indictment smith
Ns,u,,ri ON several grounds, tue nt-i
SwbIrh was ''ihe indictment does
.Iste facts sufficient 10 constitute a
tstiir ofieusc.D Tho court below sus'
i,inri the demurrer. ..
Tsunsei for respondent contends that
,bs Indictment does not charge n
T,rnpiul taxing" then tho lfssump.
1911 iaw IL that II was "fightiully
Ven y but ~ gi oTwafuH a dfalt con-
,,,ssi In II was cmbtIzlud by the DE-.
sng.pi. that IL none " the business Of
Taifait,d States. Having once Ia.
,ss,,onally parted with letter, the
Ta,i,i states lOsus Jurisdiction, uuu %
snyibipg that IN wrong Il done there.
Mr.. that wrong should be flghici by
iss case was argued and "a mittcj.
ms afternoon Mt. Warner, cOuurol
bfarpeIIant In the case AZ tue United
sac. Of America W. sim Dugginsi
nthls ca.e appellant was indicted,
,,i,I by Jury And convicted IN the
Tblfd district court for the crime Of
siultefy, and was sentenced 10 nine
nbntbs impfis1nmeut In the Teniten'
,s,v. Tnr defendant flied a motion
Tfa uew trial, which was OverTuled
by tue cUuf. From the order over
niuug de'undanpe motion fOr new
uial and from final Judgment OF een'
lsDce, the defendant appcals.
Toe nTsI error Assigned OF which
defendant complaint, IN THAT the
f5utt erred IN decisions OF law arising
JlflBg tao course o. the trial. 10 is
Mo claimed that new evidence Ia die.
eoyefui material ~ tho defendant"
IL il therefore asked that the case be-
reversed and remnuded.
In hItnuswef, u. y. Attorney J. W.
Judd, moves tU dismiss tho appeal be-
,u,e there In no bill Of exceptions
AIKEN and lled In the court below
containing VI any error OF the action
Of t6r enufl; and that n the record as
fed should be treated ~ q bill OF excep.
uoni; there ~ 10 assignment OF errors
uuUu ANY action Of the court below,
either in it, ruling upon the trial or IN
lie action everything the motion Of the
defendant ltra new trial.
Tue cast was argued ana submitted,
The people OF the Territory OF Utah,
respondent, VI william March, appel.
lini, was tAkoa up at the c0nclu'
tlon o. tue former case.
10 this cause the appellant was Ia.
dlc,ri by the grand Jury, trie1 anu
Convicted Of tbs Utlonso Of unlawfullY
opening aud conducting faro aud other
kames " chance Ia violation OF the
Territorial laws. The doiOndant was
tuly Afraigued before the court ami
saltiei special plea In bar, that au'
cher suit ior the sans Oiiuuse wa.
pta1iug iu another court After the
dt'tnlAut was convicted ho moved
iofA new trial, which was Dvofruled,
and he was sentenced 10 four months
10 the county jail or 500. Tue cast
va argued AMI submitted.
The court then adjourned until to
morrow ut 100, m,