Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1899-05-05
Supreme Court Holds that Twelve
Jury Law Is Still in Force.
WRIT OF MANDATE ISSUES.
Judge charlie. %. Hart Directed 60
Proceed win 1lmpaneiiing
Twelve Jurors.

'hnflca ". Hart. sitting M judge pro
ten u the Third district court. ordering
that the writ Of mandnmus prayed for
b. Issued, directing the court to cmpan-
81 jury Of twelve persons and pro-
coed with the trial Of cx-seicctmnn
Joseph II. Morris on the we'll known
bribery charges. The decision Affects
number Of other similar cases
throughout the State. wherein the
question arose: Have the courts au.
thorlty In law 10 cmpanoi Jury of
twelve to try defendants of oftcnHcs
committed prior TO the admission u the
State into the Union? The opinion
holds that tho Territorial enabling act
and statute providing for n jury 81
twelve men. In criminal cases. are not
rcpugnant to the Constitution; and
that the judges OF the district courts
arr expressly clothed with power TO
Try such cases under the Constitution
and statute referred 10.
Morris was indicted by the grand
jury Of Salt Lake county In January,
1896, charging him with the crime of
agreeing 60 accept a bride while acting
IN the official capacity Of rclcctmnn.
The defendant has been tried twice for
iht nu'utet tuf jury taNh hih' HAA"At'a-
ing on IT, verdict,
In December. 1895. the case again
came ON for trial before Judge Hart,
sitting In place OF Judge Norrcil, coun-
~ Attorney Van cott requested tho
court TO impanol jury Of
Twelve sso., Sh'1 ,or Judge Ss a.1s S%srs
under the state Constitution and stat
utcs his honor had no authority 10 to
do. and that because uiidcr section 1.
article n, OF amendments to the Com
rtitution % the United States. de-
PENDANT could not be placed In jcopar-
dy without due pJfoccaH Of law" Judge
Hart refused to lmpAnel twelve Juror,
claiming that u would be contrary To
the law NJ set down by the supreme
court In the case OF the State VI Bates
The State then pciitioncd the higher
court for an alternative writ of mandate
10 compel Judge Hart to impanci
dy without due proccs of law" Judge
jury 81 twelve and procccdcd with
trial % the case.
The nrnt question considered by Jus.
ticc Miner. who delivered tho opinion.
was whether mandnmuH was the proper
remedy. Il IL held that the only re-
course left the PLAINTIFF was the writ
% mandnmus.
on the question whether a Jury Of
twelve can lawfully be cmpanclcd In
thoM0rriH case under the Constitution
and statutes az they now stand. the
the Morris ease under the Constitution
enabling act the rights 81 persons,
charged with commission Of oncnHcH
prior 10 statehood are preserved, and
RENDERS them liable TO punlHhtncnet I'M
der the State laws.
Sections Ito :. Inclusive Of article q
~ the Constitution tho court furthUi
nndu. provides that no iricrruptipn or
NaNN
criminal, then pending the courts u the
territory when the state was admitted.
shall result by reason Of tho change
60 state government" Continuing,
Justice Miner says; These provisions
of the conalltution. In connection with
| the enabling act. clearly empower the
| State 10 proceed ana Try persons for
ofIenHea committed prior 60 the aimiH-
sion OF the siGle into the Union" Com
tinuing Justice Miner says.
while section 10 article ~ the Con-
stltutlon does not apply Ia ononscH
committed before statehood. the. owl
| dent Intention ~ the ffamerr OF tho
| Constitution was 10 carry forward ex-
/ iHting laws, except ~ they were repug-
nnnt 10 the Constitution, by general
provision ~ nA 10 cover offcnHcs COM
mltted prior 10 statehood. and this was
done by the adoption ~ section .. ar
| tirle y ~ the Constitution, which pros
vldca, that all laws ~ the Territory
| " Utah. now IN force, not rcpugnant
| 10 the Constitution shall remain In
force until they expire by their own
/ limitation or are altered or repealed by
the legislature This Wow II consistent
with tho Enabling Act and tho several
| provisions ~ tho Constitution, and not
| In conflict with the decision In Thomp-
| son w Utah. which holds that section
| 10 Of article l. was tx post fnctn In It's
application 60 fcionlea committed before
the Territory became n State"
| II ~ also held that the provisions ~
section 10 ~ the Constitution were not
| intended b. apply 10 this class % eases,
| neither was u the Intention ~ IT.
! trainers 10 DISCHARGE from criminal
| liability all persons charged with
crimes committed PRIOR 10 statehood
With the exception % the LcgiEln-
tnre changing the manner ~ summon
| Ing a Jury. Justice Miner holds that the
| law with reference 10 a trial by Jury IN
| criminal cases romans the same as II
existed prior 60 statehood. except ''na
legislation has been framed In conform
ny with section 10, article T. state Con-
| Htitution"
chapter I Of tho laws Of Utah for
| 1896, the court finds was tho FIRST law
enacted after statehood. This act
| Justice Miner says. relates to the man
nor of summonlng jury and has no
reference 10 the number necessary 10
/ the Nfltl ~ ~ fAANff lNl' NflfMlllk
clause OF this statute repeala all laws
In conflict herewith"
| chapter % Of the sans laws, II Is
held, refers 20 the method OF summon
ing jury, but does not ilN the NUM-
Der neither does Il contain a repeating
| clause.
The court then quotes from sections
| sls0, glSh. 2isG 81 the revised statutes
for is9s; subdivision Of section $40,
| Of the compiled laws for isss, carried
into section i0s2 ~ the revised Htatutca.
/ isls. aud further SAYS
| ''rhe manifest intent ~ these titutes
and exceptions TO the repeating stat
/ tttes was 10 preserve all provisions OF
the Territorial statutes not ropugnant
no the Constitution relating 10 uffencaH
| committed prior 10 the admission OF
the state. and whcre authority was
! given 10 authorize courts IN ths eSer-
die of their jurisdiction, n the conrfe
NJ procedure was not specifically point
| "a out by statute, 70 adopt suitable
| mode % procedure which might APPEAR
most conformahle TO the split OF the
(continued on page two)