Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1899-06-09
Supreme Court says Statute Applies
to Employer and Employees.
JUSTICE BASKIN DlsSENTs.
Miners who work longer Than
Eirht Hours do 20 90 own risk
II. q. Pyper Loses,

Ing that when nn omploye contracts
with o. firm Co work in excess Of that
tlmo be- cannot recover Tor the extra
lab0r a dissenting opinion by Justice
nastln. holds that be- can recover
The uus 90 The cnse decided 10 %. l..
Short. appellant. W the nuIli1n-ic.k 8
Champion Mining company. Action
was commenced in th, Flfth JulicHI
district. before Judge iiirTns. lha
complaint alleged that between co...
months ~ June and November, 1896.
pialnun was employed IN the defendant
company's mill at Eureka. reducing
orcs. for which no WIS paid at the rate
OF $40 psr day. lie was required 90
work twelve hours per day. which De
nilegfd was contrary 20 the cight-h1ur
law. For the extra fnuf hours thus put
Ia he claimed an additional $50 Der
day. OF total Of tii.ii. Twelve more
causes u action ln favor ~ other Wln-
ere. who had asslgncd their claims 20
plaintiff, were also alleged, The de-
PENDANT interpreted q rcncru demurrer
10 the complaint, which judge higsina
me supreme court defines the word
employment. al used In the statutes.
10 mean "thu act Of employing or u.s.
ing." also "thc state N being oin-
ployod." when the defendant CONE
pany required flaihtin TO work twelve
hours each day and he complied with
the request. the court holds that The
law was violated by each party for
The reason that the provision Of the
statute was aimed ut the employer aud
20 any person who should violate IT,
provisions. Says the courts
"rho Language of the act does not
HssHa DO NHt
tended by u 10 confer any right upon
the cmplpyo 20 work moro than cight
hours day and relieve him from any
criminal responsibility therefor. Such
an inference L. clearly repealed by the
express provisions Of tho act making
any pcruon liable who violates any W
IT, rroviHiunn.'
judge liiRFins. IN discussing the case.
commented az follows
The question ia,howovcr whether un-
der this law, such a contract IL invalid
30 10 the emplnyc, We think ia law
and IN reason Il In. ~ n void nH Go
him frat, FOR the rcaHon that Dc d.
implicitly forbidden 10 make such n
coniracti second. because when he en-
tiers into a contract Of this nature be-
knowingly aud voluntarily assist the
employer 10 violate the law. No b..
comes In effect "a rarticcpa cfiminia
with the employer. Tor II L. patent that
with no cmployo willing to make such
contract. the employer II powcrlcaa 10
act
we are further Of tho opinion that
the right TO waive this legislative pro-
lection Ia without the power OF the
empioyo THIS law h IN tho nature
o. state police regulation. 49, obs
icct Il the good 81 tho public un well
a. u tho Individual. The State In this
has INTERVIEWED IN VA own behalf This
protrction 10 the state cannot ~ will
be waived BY any Individual. an in.
tcEral part hcrof The fact that tho
Individual n willing % waive hiH PRO.
tection cannot avail The public good
u entitled % protection and oonsidrra-
lion, ana II IN order 60 cnoctuatc that
nhlcrt thtfc must be- enforced urutrcs
ton 20 the individual. such Individual
must submit 20 such enforced prutue-
tion for tho public guod"
The supreme court quotes the fore.
going from Judge illgEiuH' decision and
eolncldra with the reasoning and poal-
lion that d taken ON the question.
After considering numerous author
ttlca Tho opinion holds that Short was
not entitled 90 recover ana thnt the de-
mnrfcr was properly sustained.
Tho opinion De- by Justice Miner.
Chief Justice Haftch ooncurrlng.
JUSTICE BAsKIN DissENTs.
Justice nasidn. In F. dissenting opln-
Ion holds that the p'.intln Do not amen
able under tho statute ANA therefore not
larticepn cflmlnla llo further holds
mat me term employment used In the
sense Il tho state of being employed
and thlh Il was not the intention " the
Legislature 90 punish tho working
man" Justice naukln refers 20 the pas.
tafu Of "a measure, introduced hy sir
Robert Peel Ia 1902, iu the british Par.
hhintnt, ua wen ~ moro recent acts
ana says Even IN our own fruc conn-
the strong arm Of the law O. protect the
ployer
u am not aware that Il has ever
been held, except in the cnHo 40 bar.
mat under ans uf these acts, passed
pa ms country or elsewhere. that IL
Nut tho Intention 60 punish the iaharer
as wen aH his employer" Concluding
Justice haHkn suYH. 40 deny tho
fiHht Of the plaintm to recover the
extra labor performed az the request
o. drfnndnut ia 90 punish him whom
me legislature intended 90 protect hy
said act, ana reward the cuipahIr
party Tor un UNtortlOu which tho act
wa passed % prevent. Tho demurrer
was Improperly sustained. ana In.
ludgmgnt should therefore 30 t,-
Ia an opinion handed down By the
HulttWe court today tho case uf Joanna
T, Piper VI the snit Lake Abatement
hWnclhuon, appellant Do reversed and
ordered dismissed.
THIS Was un acton brought TO To-.
cover tho sum OF til0ig5 on % claim
Tor certain services ALLEGED to hny4
been performed Tor mo san l4E.
Amusement company by n. NJ pyppr.
Who assigned hlH claim 90 tho plnIn.
I'M The Jury found iu favor OF MIA
ilpnf Tor Aa01ul uul costs, when tne
Helthdaht corporation appealed
Ihe association Incorporated May
20 lN9i, ioi the purpose ~ erecting thr
huliulhs known ua tho Grand Thr1t,r
anu maintaining therein place nf
a.lllNllngnt 49, IT, lNpcr was treas.
urer until june 1rd. 1896. 10 nppplrt
That he performed work Incidental To-
thr ponhtrurilnu uf "a building. such na
hlfinK carpenters, letting cuntrhrts
PAYING inc men ana selling tickats.
one important Item, however. Dr. over.
looked ana that was tho making OF are
rahEeiueniH with tho association Tor
compensation Nothing was SAID about
Wages "a fact that was brought ont nt
the ilal Mother ana any of inc other
oUlcera receive salary, After pyppf
ceased 90 Doe nn officer h. put IA hls
claim Tor compensation,
ln October 1895 The association be-
came bankrupt and 81 200 was borrowed
from James ana John u. Rogers and
used IN completing the building, Then
Followed numerous stock Transaction
ai none of which ala Pypor present his
alleged claim
The defendant association IN appeal
Ing took the uOsitlOu that both plnlu.