Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1898-11-10
SHEEP CAST DECIDED.
Summit County Ordnance TAXING he wcOly
Quaduped Held 10 Be Invalid.
STATE SUPREME COURT so DECIDES,
Appeal Dismissed In Case Of Iioaf lard "
Iioagiand Question OF Venue
Determined.

The supreme Court handed down
three OPINIONS again today affirming
two and reversing tho othcr.
The reversal was IN the case o. Mag
gic Holgland. appellant, W Frank
Hoagland. and she aiiirmatlona Ncrg In
The cases Of Arthur 4. Street " George
Harvey. appellant. and summit county.
appellant, W Sanford Oustavculn.
The nrHt named case Involved the
question % a Hiatuacy contribution Of
poverty aiiiiav.ia ana IN actions COM
mHncc1 " fthout advancing cuu.a
Mr.. Hlugiand HuC1 her hu1abnd In
October, 1891, fIr 500 per month per-
manent ahnony. alleging that he was
worth 10000 Ga pr1poriy, consisting uf
"a secondhand store 10 this witty and
other property Ia Utah and Colorado
The defendant claimed shat he waH
divorced from me plalreir a. San Juan.
Colorado, IN 1885, ana shat therefore she
was not wife ana was entitled 90
nothing.
Tho case wa dried before Judge Hlies
last May Nho rcudercd judpnent for
ihe dHfcnlnnt whom plaluiln Apcpalsd.
No undertaking on appeal aus nlsd
% being cuuionded shat tho niinE of
poverty afn1avit superseded II and
therefore rendered % unnecessary.
Counsel Tor defendant cotgendrd that
/ the law required the Ming % an under.
/ taking nrd on thla ground moved 20
/ dismiss the appeal.
The court h6'is that the purpose Of
sections 1918 % 1890 revised statutes,
| 1895. 4 90 permits persons who have
/ meriiofilua causes % action or dofqnaes
| and who are shown 10 have no property,
money, or means 10 pay he fees. re-.
/ quircd BY law, 10 commence or defend
such actions without advancing tho
Il Al az
/ the anlihvit provided FOR In secilpn 1917,
/ relieves the necessity % advancing uni-
Gers fees, which belong 10 tho State,
but not the Ming % an undertaking un-
| der section llo5 20 reimburse the res
poudont Tor his costs II aucccasful on
! appeal.
Thccourt fur,her hollis that section,
1915 10 1890. revised statutes. PROVIDING
/ how a poor person may prosecute or
dHcnd an actlon without advancing
/ unicrrf' fees, DO not modify OF repeal
section $500. requiring the hllnE nf an
undertaking on appeal fur rtapondthrs
benefit
Tho couf, also holds that tho under.
taking on appeal, required hy sections
1'oa, D. nlei Tor the h.utult NJ the res
/ p1uieut and d. q rlrhi which may Do
waived
FOR falling 60 ME nu Undertaking thu
court 0riers a conditional dismissal,
/ giving appellant. however. thirty days
additional time 90 ille thr same
sTho opinion IL hy Justice iner Justice
imrich coucurrlng aud Chlei JuaNco
o5iHiFsTioS or VENUE DETER.
MINED.
IN tho cnfe % Arthur A. hieed "
OHlfgr Harvey, appa liant which "a az
ntmad. chief Junrlcr Zane decided o.
very important pnir, with resp 81 20
tho plan ~ trial u causes OF ae.l1n
arising outside ~ the stage.
n viii Boz remembered that 80 certain
| former decisions 81 the ftlte aupf0mt
| count % has been held ihlt under th'
| CONGREGATIONAL pruvHlorH,rrqulring ace
| lions 90 h1 iriud ln ihg county wh.r
| the clfse ~ action arose. thlt an fueh
/ actions musi BE- tried within the cluH-
10y Eiero ihr same arose.
in tha case lt bar the c1ur. decides
as 90 the prlpE place VI trial ~ oausea
NJ action airing nusflde OF the STATE
and in enect holds that such causes of
] action are trirf..1ry prf th1i the de-
PENDANT may h' sued "a any county o.
! thr state wherein Nc ia served with
pucesa ur Voluntarily app lrs,
iu rh.H case iAf plaintiff sued Tor
damages f1r breach Of a contract made
in liat1 and ,l hs performed 80 wy
] ,muE thr terHth % contract taking
place ana the cause NJ action arising
| IN Wyumlug Plaintiff sued 30 recover
I $3.50 daunrrr- M Weber cnufGy. The
defendant Insisted thlt the cause Of
action IA n0t arise In Weber and the
/ trial WIS therefore crtuuUQus, says
] She clur.3
As we have seen the constitutional
/ provision of Utah requiring all causes
nruln 90 be heard In the county lu
! which they arise has ~ application tu
| those arising outside of the State, ana
/ therefore beyond Goo Jurisdiction. This
state can have no power o. require
fauHuH ~ action sn arising 10 Dee trlsd
he the county ln which they arise. und
90 deny the plaintiff tho r,Ehi t0 main
tain his suit fnr the rcasa that the
cause IN nny county 0f the State would
be- violation ~ the Constitution ID
h- United states as We have seen L."
Finding mo- reversible error the court
orders gu affirmation OF the lower
courts Judgment.
Justices hartch and Miner concur Ia
the opinion,