Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1895-03-30
NOT IN CONTEMPT.
"a SAYS judge Blrlch 10 R'5aId 10
Albert &. Cahlol.
roUrus or TUE COUNTY COURT
That BODY May Review tue Acts OF Its
Predecessors and Corg,cI
their Errors
POWERS or ruE COUNTY COURT

liir. Bar,ch ruled this morning
.... Albert r.. CahI1n, the wIinc's
vbo rsuseJ to answer buioto thr
c5upty court lat Thursday, dufiug The
I8gglfy Into tho alleged county frauds,
t,ip5t been gully Of ugn'cmIt AMI
be vss formally discharged.
The r.uu, iu giving DE decision,
,.-sfE,d that 800 o. certain Proceeding
b. lone tns Territorial supreme o5utt a.
.,,I..t January term tho question OF
validity VI certain county wafrAu,s
I.uriuy The county court JfAalt Lake
unity during tho yeags 1893 and
f.l4 was presented. The court
,su.u hold that those val-
..,ts. 10 certain amount. were
valid. Itarpoafei from Tina, opinion
.atau.ul $4,000 worth Of warrants
v,irHtli MOTTO be a proper charge
rg,ip4,tho county, After that igclslon
sa. rendered tho county court, %
..rmpi. resolved ilorli into o. commit.
t.ou. investigation Tor the purpose oil.
rlcsuaiulug what portion Of tueh
vlrmnu were invalid, AMI examining
.B. ,He action OF the former o0ur, ga
reference thereto.
The facts lu tue case were not iuiIy
fsIuut iu the pleading, but hlH honor
e.fautI from the Arguments ui u1uus
t.i. 900 the presentation VI the question
Ieffr him, that tho county court was
attempting TO investigate Oh 10 wht-
iHrf not these warrants were prop.
riy Hsuef, and whether the elaine
.l which tney were itHuUl were legal
atasaiust the county.
Under the statute Of this Territory,
hug0uuty c.ur, iu tho oJuIsv Of BE-
investigation, tuhI uulud thu Hlls
UaholH o. appear DUiUro them aud give
such Information l8 be might pUHrE
boz fusafi 90 the alleged contract for
Che furnishing Oi malrfIn. GO mace
lamIE iuu Siniu r0ad. The wlinUss
alupt failed JuproabHud wuOu h0uIu
Do refused 10 testify, claiming thst the
county court had no luuHJlCii0u 20
compel him 10 d0au, sitting ns a board
90 oimmitiee Of Investigation.
judge BafiCh said be- was OF
oTuilu that tho county court could
U5. ftiI.yp itsrl' into such o. cone
mIt6-g9uli no, delegate the power
Of .IlmIulus Wl,uu1Eua which War
uu'gud hy law upon the county
UlI. Ja committee appointed by tugt
UlIy
Iac statute under which the utracnt
preceding was had vac guOtui by tine
a.ut Or follows "MuUHuyuI tho
c1uy clf, OF any county shall iCrm
DO E.uf.afy Ur important o. examine
aug .F1u sHA witness upon any Hub-
'atf 90 MATTER altlln tho jurisdiction
HFuch court, uF 10 examine any ltiICsT
10 itr county in relation 90 thU dir
charge of hiH O1lrill duty, a. 90 10.
Ul.'I. OF disbursement uy him 0f Any
lgluY ur concerning too possession or
at.urfyuUul by hIm ut.Guy Tr5rUgy
lflHglng 90 llr county, or 20 utt,
inspect, or examine any books, o..
rlHtrg NJuuhusH Uf documents la the
IHarullu %. auyh gillcHrur atuur UrI.
tgu, Ug under uis control, 1T relative tu
ODE affairs 90 Interests % the county,
.hn lr.1aD iulgo shall Issue
% would 10 observed that, under
iA,ftBiuit, thu county court had the
poser whenever ~ deemed 10 uuCrB,
uiy 90 important, 90 examine any por-
Don na % wltuvHB upon subject UT
matter within he Jurisdiction, az turh
g.uIL Tho statute seemed 90 be- pX.
l.Itii ua 90 this, but he found
DOB authority anywhere that would
lr'ml the Count 90 delegate the power
oFutIWuGlug hud examining WllutiHps
O. any other UOuy or puu0u. 10 would
alpalS then, that % this ftllu,n W4s
DO. iu drrogatiou Of the Organic Act OF
lbH Territory, tho county court itself
was ihu proper body ~ make such uG,
animation, Huu tAuy could not go Oul.
tl4e OF Whist tho statute sail. Under
lhu Proceedings, therefore, as iusuIu..
Ell iu ilis case, hg thought tho witurss
could not be- held IA Cout1ml 4 court
Tor refusing 10 alawor
Tho question now REQUIRED nB TO
whether the county court iistli Gould
make such examination aud iu-
lulfo Into the sc.H Of tho former
county court, Counsel for the
petitioner maintained that wneu the
county u1ut. ma1e an examination IT
Hu account 0r bill which hui been
properly pttsruttd, passed uIuu 10, aud
ordered The warrant 90 issue, that 10 ue.
came re- yudiaata, mud that a cub.
tquthl court could not iuqu|rs
1870 H. even though 70 VA.
erroneous ana improperly isuuE.
Ito could not ngICo with
counsel on that point lie thought
Wal 10 the cseo OF fraud, COLLISION OF
sH1r when this was shown, especially
before hual payment OF the warrant
il lslal, The succeeding county court
Nal shu hight ~ correct those error;
auu Do lii not consider thAgtbu statute
,H'In vac Ia conflict with any act o,
congress or tho Orgaulo act IL
W. proper ana .biAding upon
-l parties and when The
elllly curt, ~ a court, lustl.
u,tl proceedings Of TINS kind,
..p,eally under the showing that wac
lnaur DO this Instance, OF n large mum.
Ioiol warrants having been apparent
issued without authority o. law. he
vac Oh opinion that th0y SIN had tue
tu' OF examining bills puBsui upDu
NJ ltlr predecessors, aud OF making a
wv aud thorough examination INTO
,DNe several queetions. Indeed, %
"ilslt u was their duty 10 do sl.
usllgo Powers-1hen tue order u
'D4' Mr. Cahoon be- disohafRed?
Judge Bartoh-Yes.