The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-06-29

The case against James T.. Monk, min
ing recorder of Big Cottonwood mining
district, charged with neglecting and re-
fusing TO deliver over to the county re-
corder the records of his office. came up
for trial before Justice McMaster yesrer-
day forenoon. The defendant asked for
a change of venue on the grounds of pre-
JUDGE and that he could not have a fair
trial before Justice Mc8Iaster. The latter
granted the motion and sent the case 10
Justice Margetts court.
Monk was fined some little. time ago
for failing and refusing on June 10 10
turn over his records and a few days
afterwards another complaint was made
against MIN, charging that on June q
ne again failed ana refused to deliver the
same records and it was this second
charge which came up yesterday. Attor-
ney Ray Van Colt prosecuted and Messrs.
II. L. K. Rhodes and James Williams de-
Tended. Monk demanded a jury trial, and
the hearing occupied the entire afternoon,
the result being that the defendant was
acquitted, Justice Margetts so instructing
the jury for the following E,asons:
l. TIE section of the laws of 1891 under
which it is sought TO convict the defend
ant provides in effect that any mining
recorder falling to deliver over TO the
county recorder his records within thirty
days after the taking effect of the act
should be guilty of a misdemeanor; the
act took effect on May TO- 1897. and the
defendant, if he failed to deliver records
in his custody as mining recorder. prior
TO June y, 1897, became guilty of mis-
demeanor; since June 9. 1897. he has been
found guilty of failing to deliver records
as required, by the act referred to; it is
sought to again punish him under that
act. and the court is of the opinion it
cnnot be done, the former conviction is
bar; no person can be punished twice for
the same offense. It is contended by the
state that the defendant is guilty of
new Offense for each day he fails to so
deliver the records. The court thinks
not. The only offense the statute provides
is the failing to deliver within thirty
days after the taking effect of the act
ii does not provide for any additional
failure after the expiration of the thirty
days. But Mr.. Van Colt contends that
is what the legislature intended and that
the rule of the common law that penal
statutes should be construed strictly has
no application in this state. but that they
should be fairly construed to carry out
the intent: if the legislature so intended,
intent. and while what is said as 10 con-
struction is true. it would be doing vio-
lence 10 the words of the legislature 10
put the construction on them asked by
the state.
. The court is of the opinion that Sec
tons and of the act, which provides
for the county recorders performing the
duties of the mining recorders. receiving
TIE records Of the latter and for the
punishment of those mining recorders
who neglect to surrender records, is I'M
constitutional. in that the title of said
act does not comply with the constitu-
tional requirement that the subjects OF
all laws should be clearly expressed IN
the title thereof.
3. That the complaint does not charge
the defendant with the commission of an
offense. 1t alleges that he failed etc:
on the 21st day of June. 1891 instead OF
charging him with having failed. etc.
for the thirty days after the passage OF
the act If law require the doing of a
particular day or between particular
dates time becomes material and the par
ticular date or dates should be specified
i'm the complaint or the complaint does
not allege an offense-