Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1898-06-04
lower COURTREVERSED
JUDGE mccARTY ERRED IN HIS RULINGS.


The Supreme court handed down an
opinion today in the case of the State
OF Utah against Thomas j. Blue, re-
verslng the cause and remandIng the
same back to the lower court.
The defendant was formerly treasurer
of Eureka city, Juab county, and
cashier Of George A. Rice & Co.'s bank.
In September. 1891, he was arrested ON
Justices warrant charged with em-
bezzlement of SG146s, monies belongings
to Eureka City corporation. lie was
later convicted by jury and sem
fenced by Judge McCarty to eighteen
months in the state prison. Prior 10
sentence, defendant, by his attorney,
moved for an arrest in judgment ON
the grounds that the Information did
not state facts sufficient to constitute
IL couse OF action, ana that two offenses
We're charged ia the various counts,
neither of which was charged IN the
complaint before the committing mag
istrate, The demurrer WAS oven uied ny
JudgeMcCarty, and this action was as
signed as error Other erIois Wpie Also
cited, among which were the court IN
structions 20 the jury and the refusal
to admit certain testimony tendlns 10
show the defendants previous good
character.
The complaint, as filed before the
Justice of the peace at Eureka, charged
Blue with having while treasurer for
Eureka, appropriated S67i.GS of the
city money to his own use and to the
use Of parties unknown; that he failed
I and neglected t o keep the same In
his possession until delivered and paid
by authority of law; and deposited the
| same with George a. Rice * company.
The court holds that the objections
| to the Information are not wen taken
because the prosecution had to elect
| which one ii desired to stand on.
| The objection to the courts instruc-
lions was the refusal to charge that.
In order to convict the jury must ind
| that Blue transferred the money in
! question to the assignee Of Rice's bank
| with the intent TO defraud and cheat
| the city.
In refusing this request thu court
| finds Judge McCarty took an Moor
| rect view Of the law under our stat
| utes. THE legislature the tourt
| says, never intended TO punish a wan
| for an act committed without a
| guilty intent" The law provides; tSec-
| ton 1883 OF the revised statutes. penal
\ code): IN every crime or public Of
Tense there must exist union, or Joint
operation OF act and intent, or crimi-
nal negligence"
Counsel for defendant also contended
that the court erred In excluding evil
dence offered to prove his general repu-
tation for honesty and integrity. The
| court finds Blues contention on this
| point to be sound, Commenting on this
| error the court says:
1.-THE law Is well settled, at least by
the weight of recent authority, that In
| every criminal case the defendant is
entitled to prove his good character.
| Where one Is charged with an offensc,
such evidence is admissible regardless
of the decisive or .ndecisive character
of the other testimony, and 1t Is within
| weight, in view OF all the other evil
dence. as 1t may be entitled to receive.
Where a person is charged with the
commission of an act which Is wholly
inconsistenE with his former conduct
and uniform course OF life, Justice de.
mands that. in this extreme moment OF
his existence, when he Is about TO be
| deprived OF life and liberty reduced to
shame and disgrace, he be permitted to
show the important fact of his good
| character Such fact, considered In
| connection with the eliminating facts.
| may, Of itself, be sufficient to render
| II highly improbable that the accused
| would commit the crime charged and
| raise Il reasonable doubt in the minds
| II the Jury Where one has led a con
| sisteut, upright and honest life. why
| should that fact not avail him when
| ccused of an act. a conviction where's
| Il would destroy all his future hopes
| nd aspirations, and take from him
| hat which can profit no man ana
| which no man can restore. History