Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1903-08-17
A STRANGE RULING.

,be meaning Of one clause In section
ave OF article eight OF the state Con-
stituton, Is one OF great Importance
and win seriously AFFECT judicial af-
fairs IN Utah. 1t will be seen from the
summary Of the conflicting opinions OF
the three justices Of the Supreme Court
That While they agree as 10 the proper
county for the trial Of hhe divorce case
(which was appealed TO that court they
disagree as to the meaning OF that part
of the Constitution herein designated.
Two Of the justices come near enough
together 10 decide that different zig
MITIGATION Is 10 be attached to mat
clause than has heretofore obtained.
And the serious part Of the ruling Is,
that Il '9ill permit judicial business to
be transacted in other counties than
that wherein It arises and consequent
~ there may be congestion OF II In
some districts and paucity OF IT In
others.
II attorneys or their clients can com
mence suits in any county as they may
choose insteNd Of that wherein the cas-
arises, the probability Is that Salt Lake,
egden and Provo win be ogercrowded
wlth litigation, while some Of the dis
tant counties viii run short, and DO
shorn OF the advantages accrulng from
the transaction OF judicial business
therein. The clause in dispute Is this
"All civil and criminal business aTis-
Ing in any countymust be tried IN sum
county, unless a change OF venue De
taken In such cases as may be pro'id-
ell by law"
Now It appears 10 the ordinary read
or Of the section in which the foregoing
clause appears. and Of the proceedings
OF the convention in which the Consli-
tuition was framed. that the intent and
purpose Of the provision cited was 10
require judicial business OF all KINDS
20 be transacted IN the county where
Ii should arise. And That .he object In
view was, 70 give all the respective
counties ~ the State the benefits Of
lolding, cburt and the trial OF cases,
ciyiyand criminal and the transaction
y such other Judicial business as
might arise within the borders Of mat
county
chief Justice Baskin appears to give
the language Of the Constitution on
this point restrictive slgniiicatlon
1e says It means causes Of action.
and lays stress on the provisions about
change Of venue But while causes
Of action are business" undoubtedly
Judicial business does not always in
clude causes Of action" There are
questions arising associated with the
settlement OF estates and other matters
growing out Of the probable jurlsdic-
ton vested by The Constitution In the
District courts, that do not involve
causes Of action either civil or crImln.
Al. and Il IA evident that the convention
used the word fbusiness" In the section
SOW considered. so as to cover the en-
tire ground and not limit It's meaning
merely to causes Of action.
The argument that change Of venue
cannot be taken unless there is a cause
Of action. does not appear conclusive in
the application made by the Chief JUS
lice. The change of venue is permitted
in such cases as may be provided by
law. and that provision is proper and
necessary but It does not follow that
business arising in county must mean
simply such as could demand change
Of venue. While the venue could be
changed IN such cases provided by
Jaw" other business. not involving a
possible demand for such change, could
be- transacted under the terms OF the
clause Of the Constitution.
As to the divorce case that
brought out this peculiar inter
probation, there was no differ
ence OF opinion among the justices
The plaintiff could not bring suit In any
other place than the count,
In which she had resided fol
one year. because that is SC
provided by law Bat. as contende,
BY Justice Bartoh. Who seems 90 hol'
closely to the meaning and intent Of
the Constitution, the injury 10 th'
plaintiff arose where she was living
Il required no stretch Of the Constltu
ton rs it stands to decide that Their
was the place for her suit to be con
Quoted.
It is true that the criminal act com
planned of took place IN another ccun
IS. and therefore q criminal prosecution
Noaid have TO be conducted IN tina
county. to carry out the constitutions
provision IN dispute. But that would b
GAUGE OF action for the State and no
for the plaintiff IN her civil suit, AM
while the criminal buslntss arising q
piute should be tried IN that county
'he injury &c the plaintiff arose to her q
Willard. the county of her rcadeao'
and therefore her d,il SUIT could b
,iied there as that business arose j
that county
Il appear7 TO us that This contcnto
could have been settled hy the Suprem
court on he merits OF The ease. withou
soing into treatise on the meaning q
nc word business" in such % wa
as 10 disturb existing methods of pro
ccdurr, and thus run oounierto ihe pur
.oss and design Of the frimeis Of on
stntc Constitution The doclsim ~ IN
FourL rendered unanimously ou ih
,sre appealed 10 It. IS douOuess sound