Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1901-02-18
The fine WAS
FIFTEEN DOLLARS
Prof. J. n. Paul Was Found Guilty
Before Justice KrOegeh
APPEAL WILL BE TAKEN.
Defendant Not Permitted TO Put In
Certaiu Evidence--Mnin Questions
Not Touched.

Today at p. m. Prof. j. II. Paul
president OF the Latter-day Saints Col.
lese appeared before Justice Of the
Peace kroeger to receive sentence upon
the charge on which he was found guilty
last Saturday evening The offense was
the neglect or refusal of the defendant
TO exclude from the college all persons
who had not been vacclnated, this being
the requirement Of an order issued last
December by the city board Of health
The professor was found guilty as be-
low stated. Today at p, m. Justice
kroeger simply announced that the
penalty would be fine Of fifteen dol
lars and costs.
Attorney II. S. Tanner at once gave
notice OF an appeal, which will be taken
this week.
The maximum penalty allowed by the
law is a fine Of 5000 and Imprisonment
for six months in the county Jail
Soon after the News report OF Prof.
j. II. Pauls trial on the charge of re-
slsting an order Of the board of health
closed Saturday afternoon, the defend
ant was placed upon the stand by his
attorney ii, S. Tanner, Prof. Paul tes-
titled that he had the internal manage
ment of the school but that he had no
to exclude pupils except for
the violation Of certain rules and regu-
ations He stated that with the facul-
" rested the responsibility Of suspend
ng the students, but under
he conditions in this case
hey had no right TO eX-
Jude pupils The reason OF this is
hat the pupils and the management OF
he college were under contract and II
my We're excluded IL might lead to dan
,erous complications and eventually de-
troy the institution.
The professor stated most emphati-
ally that he had complied with the re-
luirements Of the board by urging the
members of the school to be vaccnated.
lie also said that the buildings had been
thoroughly fumigated or two occasions
ma that every precautionary measure
o prevent the spread of disease, had
leen taken.
= number OF pupils were put upon the
tand and testified that they were re-
uired to get certificates OF health be-
ore being admitted to school. After a
rief argument the jury retired and
DON after sent for instructions as to
whether a principal OF school should
g held responsible when he he was I'M
er the directions of others. Justice
.roeger read the decision OF the Su-
RENE court on the point involved and
he Jury at once returned a verdict of |
uilty.
The legal questions involved were
nally limited by the rulings of the JUS !
ce merely to the proof as to whether |
rof, Paul had received such an order |
'om the board of health and whether |
result of receiving such an order,
nyaccinated pupils had been excluded.
he attorney for the defense. Mr.. II. S.
amer, began by stating that the de-
nse proposed TO show that the presi-
INT Of the Latter-day Saints college
I'd compiled with the order Of the
lard OF health as far as il was possible
n him TO do so under the necessary
nltauons OF his power as an employe
the corporation known as the Latter
~ Saints college association, and that
oreoVer the order OF the board Of
'alth as interpreted by members of
at board had been compiled with In
od faith by the college. The attorney
Id that testimony 10 prove these facts
'uld be introduced and began by call
( DR. King to the witness stand and
ked him II the board OF health had
I issued and order like the present
e ABOUT one year ago. This was OBJ
Yea TO py the prosecution, on the
ound that the failure Of the college 10
ey the order one year ago, would not
,use II for falling to obey the present
Ter. The defense replied that they
peeted TO show that the College had
implied with the order one year ago
d mat the manner OF It's compliance
N was known TO and assented by
ctors King and Beatty, and that the
ne compliance was given this year
o.
he judge held that II was irrelevant !
10 what the college or the board OF {
ilth had done a year ago. and that
only question before the court wag !
order issued this year. The defense I.
I'm argued that the precedent estab- !
Ieu one year ago by the action OF the =
I'd OF health should be rightly CON !,
ered a guide for the action OF tho COL =
this year under the same order !
that the defense would show that b
ION OF the college was the same in
cases The Judge decided that the
'rpretation put upon the order OF the
rd OF health by that board. n such n
had been given. would
DE legal IN any case and would not
use the defendant. This line of evil
&c was therefore ruled out as mad
sible ''''N-
he defense then endeavored 10 show Il
effect that a literal and abrupt on. X
ement OF the order of the hoard ~ In
IN would have had upon the col =,
saying that IL would have done ~
u injury, for II would have shut ant W
-hiihs OF the students. N rigIdiy on. W
"a al The very beginning etc. This n
oi evidence was also ruled out as m
evant WV 10 u
zen the defense attempted 10 show th
the college was dependent for he G.
'ort and continuance upon the tut -,
the donations and good viii OF lts ~
ons, etc, so that 10 shut out its Il
ents would do II more injury than OF
lar action would do 10 public 81
Institution, etc This evidence te
also decided TO be Irrelevant. LEI
ANY me defense tried TO attack the Sc
under which the action was ce
ght Offering TO show by iae testl- DO
OF legislators who passed the law tn
II originally had a compulsory vac. REL
Ion clause In II. and was passed DO
after that clause had been strick. int
az and with the express assurance tai
G board Of health that the law, as me-
amended. did not authorize com. ioT
ny vaccination IN any form. This ma
nee was also objected TO by the sa
cution and ruled out by the Judge thu
case for the prosecution was very ga
and simple. consisting only OF COZ