The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1895-03-31

The most important of several decisions
handed down by Judge Bartch yesterday
was that in regard TO a. E. Cahoon, the
witness who refused to testify before the
county court as committee Of investiga-
ton in the matter of the alleged frauds
upon the county in the paving of State
road.
The court held that Cahoon was not In
contempt, sustained the demurrer to the
petition to have him committed for con-
tempt and ordered him discharged.
Statement of the Case.
Judge Bartch. in giving his decision.
said that in the proceedings before the
territorial Supreme court in January, in
regard to the validity of county warrants
issued during 1893 and 1894, the Supreme
court held that TO a certain amount those
warrants We're valid and that 1t appeared
that about $4,000 of those warrants were
not a proper charge against the county
The county court then resolved itself
mine what portion of said warrants were
properly issued, and to investigate the
acts Of the former county court in rela-
ton thereto. While conducting the In
Qutry the county court Subpoenaed Ca
boon to appear before them and give such
information as he possessed in regard to
the furnishing Of material to macadamize
the State road Cahoon at first failed to
respond to the subpoena, and when he did
he refused to testify, claiming that the
county court sitting as an investigating
committee. had no jurisdiction to compel
him to do so.
Cannot Delegate It's Power.
Judge Bartch, continuing, said he was
of opinion that the county court could
not resolve itself into such committee
could not delegate the power OF examin-
Ing witnesses which was conferred by
law upon the county court to a commit
9nnninfad nv n6xr
The statute under which the present
court, as follows: Whenever the county
court of any county shall deem 1t neces-
sary or important to examine any person
as a witness upon any subject or matter
within the jurisdiction of such court. or
to examine any officer of the county in
relation to the discharge of his official
duty, as to the receipt or disbursement by
him Of any money or concerning the pos
session or disbursement by him of any
property belonging to the county or to
use, inspect, or examine any books, &C
counts, vouchers or documents in the pos
session Of such officer or other person, or
under his control, or relative to the af-
fairs or interests of the county the pro-
bate judge shall issue a subpoena
County Court Can Subpoena.
It will be observed that, under this
statute, the county court had the power
whenever it deemed it necessary or i'm
portant to examine any person as a wit
jurisdiction, as such court. The statute
seemed to be explicit as to this; but he
found no authority anywhere that would
permit the court to delegate the power of
subpoenaing and examining witnesses to
any other body or person. 1t would ap-
pear, then, that if this statute was not
In derogation of the organic act Of this
territory. the county court itself was the
proper body to make such examination
and they could not go outside of what the
statute said. Under, the proceedings.
therefore, as instituted in this case he
contempt of court for refusing to answer
Their Duty To Investigate.
The question now required as to wheth-
err the county court itself could make
such examination and inquire into the
sci for the petitioner maintained that
when the county court made an examina-
ton of an account or bill which had been
properly presented, passed upon it, and
ordered the warrant to issue, that it be-
came res judicata and that a subsequent
though it was erroneous and improperly
issued. He could not agree with counsel
on that point. He thought that in the
case of fraud, collision or error, when
this was shown, especially before final
payment of the warrant so issued the
correct those errors; and he did not con-
slider that the statute here was in con-
fict with any act OF Congress or the or
ganic act 1t was proper and binding up
on all parties, and when the county
court instituted proceedings of this kind
especially under the showing that was
made in this instance. of large number
of warrants having been apparently is
sued without authority of law he was of
opinion that they still had the right of