The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1898-12-14

Joseph r. Morris will not be tried for
the offense charged against him in the
Indictment found over two years ago,
until after the supreme court OF TINS
state has passed upon the right OF lne
lower courts to empanel jury VI
twelve in criminal cases originating pe
fore Utah was admitted as a state.
Judge Hart last night decided tnaI
the court had no right to empanei d
iurv Of twelve men for the trial OF the
case. and that Morris was entitled 10
trial by a jury composed OF that num-
Der.
From this decision the county atlor-
new will appeal to the supreme court.
The Judge was a patient listener yes
terday to arguments of counsel. he
sat quiet while each of them presented
reasons why the trial should not be had
and why it should. Judge Powers con
fined himself to the law phases OF the
matter of summoning jurors, ana JUDGE
Loofbourow argued for continuance
on the ground Of the newly dlscoVereu
evidence as shown in the afndaNlt
filed. which appeared in The Herald OF
YESTERDAY. Of course, County Attorney
Van Colt resisted all attempts to keep
Morris from being tried. In this he was
aided and assisted by Mr.. Attorney
General Bishop who filed a brief, al
it at ALL 1t should have been called a
d, long instead of a brief.
The attorney general contended Tor
the rights of courts to empanel JurleS
consisting of twelve men. Stripped OF
all the Superf1uouS Verolage when
clouds opinions of this kind to the
minds of laymen, the attorney general
took the position that the judgment of
the supreme court of the United States
in the matter of the case of the state
VS.. Lars Thompson in effect restored
all defendants who had been tried to
the status they occupied before such
trial and conviction, a position in Which
the writer of the brief declared Morris
stood.
Having made this emphatic declara-
ton, the attorney general asked the
question which was agitating the court:
Have the courts authority in law to
empanel a jury of twelve and proceed
to the trial of such cases?
Before getting down into the sub
ject, the attorney general gave out the
following, which will no doubt be re-
garded as a crumb of comfort by the
attorneys for the defendant: Should
this court hold that a. jury Of twelve
men can be empaheled, and the tria.
proceeded with, the defendant, if con-
victed, may appeal to the supreme
court Of this state, and possibly to the
supreme COQIl VI the OnISU
necessary, as the right of appeal to tht
defendant is sufficiently broad, under
the statute, to enable him to DO so
Should this court, however, take the
opposite view, and decide that a jury
of twelve cannot be empaneled undel
the law. the question could not be re
viewed by the appellate court, mas
much as the statutory grounds for ap
peal on behalf Of the state are not suci
as to entitle the state to appeal from
such Judgment ,
1t may be interpolated here that i
this contention is true, Morris vii
never again be tried
Under the head of argument tn
!. attorney general devotes about thre,
newspaper columns to an attempt t,
demonstrate the strength of his conten
ton, quoting laws and statutes. ena
bling acts and congressional rulings
constitutional provisions, and what ma
be called ct cetera, ct cetera The lega
mind interested in the entire readin,
can get the same from the files of tn
court, but to the layman it viii be sufi
Gent to announce that the attorne-
general held that, while the law nigh
be defective in some points as to sDe
cinc instruction, generally it was sue,
as to enable the court to summon a, ju1-
of twelve
When the court came to rule on tn
A1-S~SeOas AiN Sealu lIldl the dIlQaVlt Tor
continuance, while not impressing hir
as strongly as it might, was one whic
he thought should be given weight an
therefore he would give the defense
continuance asked for until the mex
term. AS to the matter of jury tria
this was subsequent to the motion fo
continuance. His honor held that til
defendant was entitled to a trial by
jury of twelve and that the court ha
no authority in law for summonin
such a jury.
When the court had completed thi
ruling, Mr.. Van Colt asked if he wouI
not reverse the order and rule on til
matter Of the jury first, in order the
the state might appeal to the supren
court
This the court declined to do, and tn
state was forced to ask the defense /
Withdraw its motion for a continuanc
in order to make matters possible. TIL.
was done and the state took an excer
ton TO the ruling of the court III
matter viii now go before the suprer
court for its decision.
Counsel for the defense is conf1der
tAat the case Will never. come to tria
= that the decisions prevent it and n
court will so hold.
SCOTT & co. WIN.