The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-02-05
Thompson VS.. Young.

Another important opinion handed
down was that in the matter of the
demurrer to the information in quo
warranto proceedings of E D. R
Thompson against LIE Grand Young. In
this case, the supreme bench was com
posed of justices Bartch, Miner and
Rolapp. the latter sitting, by request,
in lieu Of Chief Justice Zane, who was
disqualified having been an attorney in
the case before he took office as chief
justice. Their honors overruled the de-
murrer unanimously. and gave the de-
PENDANT time to answer.
The relator alleged in his informa-
ton filed that numerous votes at var
ious precincts which We're intended for
him were counted for his opponent, the
defendant. and that these votes should
be given to him, which would be more
than sufficient to elect him. He pray
ed that Judge Young be ousted from
The position of a Judge of the Third
judicial district, and that he, the re-
lator, be declared the lawful holder of
the office.
GROUNDS FOR THE DEMURRER.
The defendants counsel filed de-
murrer setting up that the supreme
court had not original jurisdiction in
nation is not brought in the name of
the state, and by its attorney general.
and that while the information filed is
designated as an information in the
nature of quo Warranto it in fact is
proceeding to contest the rights of the
relator, Thompson, and the defendant,
Young, to the said Office of district
judge.
1t was also urged that the informa-
ton did not state facts sufficient to
entitle the relator to the relief sought
or any relief, and further that the in
formation is ambiguous, unintelligible
and uncertain in that while it sets
forth the territorial extent of the Third
judicial district in which the election
was held, and that siXty-seven votes
cast for the relator were by the Judges
of election rejected and not counted for
the relator, for the reason, as alleged,
that said ballots had, by inadvertence,
been deposited in the wrong box, the
information nowhere alleges sets out
at what particular poll or polls in said
district the said votes were cast, nor
the names of the said electors who cast
the same, and no information whatever
is given by whom or what particular
place or places the said votes were
cast.
The said information further sets out
that at said election large number
of votes, to wit, more than ninety, were
cast in favor of the relator for said Of
fee of district judge. which were by the
Judges of said election, wrongfully and
Illegally rejected and refused, but the
informal ton nowhere sets out either the
names of the voters whose votes were
so rejected, as alleged, nor does it
any where set out or designate at what
poll or polls the same were so rejected
or BY what judges the same were re-
jected.
THE FINDINGS
The opinion was delivered by Judge
Bartch, who after briefly stating the
case. said that the judges had carefully
considered it and had come to the
unanimous conclusion that under the
this court had jurisdiction
to determine the right to the Office as
between the contestants; also that if
the Encouragement failed to prosecute,
the court, as it had done in this case,
may authorize a private individual to
do so. The action was properly
brought and the demurrer to the in
formation was overruled.
TIME TO ANSWER.
Attorney c. J. Pence, for the de-
PENDANT. asked for thirty days time
to answer the complaint seeing that
would have to be col
lected from various precincts all over
the three counties comprising the
Third judicial district
Judge Bartch said the court would