Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1899-10-23
Supreme Court Administers Re-
buke to Members Of the Bar
BRIEF STRICKEN FROM FILES
attorneys criticised TRIAL Court Ne
phi Ease, In which same occurs,
IL demanded.

The Supreme court has handed down
an opinion in the CAGE ~ tho N,phi
Irrigation company ST. Samuel T. VIck-
ere, appellant ordering that the supple
monial nndlnFa and decree boz oct aside.
ana with directions 90 the trial court
10 permit the parties 10 Introduce ndii-
uon1l testimony Tor the purpose OF use
cerinlnlnr their respective rIrht1.
Prpco,ilnEa iu ihis clss uaro bad bee
fore Judge Higgins ot Ncphl. who found
that the defendant was tho owner 0f
sufficient water. Of Hop crock Goo irfi-
gate thirty ncfon ~ land. and also de-
creed him to Do owner of aumaiant wa.
ter from Rock eprlnrn 60 lrrIrata One
acre % land during the irrigation HUu-
son. 10 Wus olal deemed that ths
plhln.lm company Wur owner ~ the fUs
muludTr ~ the waters Of tho creek and
thfcc springs. An appeal waa taken
ana The supreme court rHmandHl tha
case back with directions tu modify
decree. and nud out tho amount 0f wa
ter iu rpcuul-fdCt that would le Fuiu-
Client to irrlrHte tho dofoudluta thirty
one acres. The court below thcraunln
made supplemental decree. from
which an appeal was taken by the de-
PENDANT ON the ground that the findings
were not warranted by The testimony
The supreme court now finds that tho
evidence showed the defendant d. orfi-
tied to more water than was given him
ln the supplemental decree; allen that
the evidence was sufficient Co base
JUDGMENT upon.
ATTORNEYS ARE CENsURED.
The court conaufos the attorney f1r
mo appellant klnH, Burton g. King
and Grant O.. iagley Tor tho language
used IN their brief. Intended Hn rofec-
ton upon the Trial. The opinion ftyai
"NitupgrluouH have mo- legitimate
place Do a lcEal argument. and
lnvectlvoa arc not argument
such practice cannot De tolerated.
and had our attention been called
90 % during the course ~ the
oral argument we would not have prr-
mlttCl counsel 20 proceed and would
have then ordered tho brief 90 be HtriCk-
en- from the files" The court then ore
dcra the hriDf stricken from thn nlca
The language dlnppruvud by che su-
promo court was that ured when lp-
pollnntH counsel lu referring tu Judge
! Higgins ana two Witnesses Irons and
Carter. uuyu. They tthe Witnessed ore
not entitled 90 the respect ~ tho lowest
individual in the commonwealth II
Do plain the truth ia not IN them They.
l nctuHtod simply by "a desire 90 rob. were
willing 20 go before court of Justice
| ana swear away mans property. Ana
yet thclr testimony appealed 10 the
court. and while n Intended 10 rob
the defendant Of hf property. 10 seemed
I the court dld not rur1tfi sufficient
| KNOWLEDGE % the mTihuds of lfrign-
tion prevailing M this State 90 detect
/ the wllful misrepresentation ~ thcro
| designing Witnesses. and took thor
| lying testimony az basis Tor tho most
| absurd decree ever rendered Ia any
court In this or any other State. Can
70 be- possible that this court VIII per-
init such an outrageous decision to
stand as the mature Judgment ~ tho
highest tribunal within this slater
such o. decision IN n reelection upon the
/ judiciary uf the state. uud We cannot
/ but feel that this court viii rro that
/ thig lone defendant a. not robbed under
/ the gulsc ~ Justice Ia "a court NJ equity
| by corporation"
The opinion was written by Justice
! fashln. and ConCurrod ln by chief
Justice Hartch and Justice Miner
JURIspIcrIoN OF JUSTICES.
In on opinion written by Justice
: Miner and cuncurtud iu by chief Jus
tlcc n1rtch and Justice nhakn. tho
l supreme court nmrma tho judgment
I OF tho district court in the case OF
! Elizabeth liriscoc W u. =. Rich, np.
/ poll1rt
Plaintiff recovered judgment before "a
/ Justice % the peace for the First pro-
/ cinrt. whom tho cause 81 action arose
| IN the Firth precinct Defendant took
| an appeal. contendlug that the Justice
/ had no Jurisdiction outside of tho pre-
| cinct Tor which he was elected, and
! that in extending his Jurisdiction 10
another precinct. he acted without ou-
thority IN law.
Tho Supreme court holda that tho
| Constitution of tho State allows Jus
| tlccs 81 the peace the anme Jurisdiction
| poasosacd hy them prior 10 statehood.
| II ~ held that section So ~ the NJ
| vltaed statutes ln unconstitutional and
| that luatlcoa ia the city have iurlsdic-
| tlon IN any precinct I'm tho city. The
| Judgment or the Third district court IL
| therefore affirmed.