The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1903-08-16
SUPREME COURT
REVERSES STAND
President of the KonoId Deci
sion Is 0Verruled.
The EFFECT is SWEEPING
SUITS MAY NOW BE COMMENCED
IN ANY COUNTY.

-AaN''t ~ NAA~4 III LAl- Guilty W mere II
arises was reversed yesterday by the
supreme court in a triangular opinion.
The decision means that hereafter a
Uansitory civil or criminal action may
De brought in the county in which the
plaintiff resides, and not necessarily in
the county where the alleged cause Of
ACTON arose, the principles of common
law being applied. The effect viii be
that the courts in the larger counties.
more especially Salt Lake. Weber and
Utah. will De burdened with increased
number of actiOns-with the consequent
added fees however-being compelled
20 try suits which heretofore have been
tried in other or smaller jurisdictions.
Where the cause OF action arose. The
decision is declared by lawyers to be
one OF the most important ever handed
down by the court.
All three of the judges wrote3 sep
arate opinions The first one was by
Chief Justice Baskin in which he re-
verses the KOnOld case. and remands
The divorce case at issue for a new
trial Justice McCarty concurs with
the chef justice in his conclusions rel
atlNe TO the divorce case. but does so
by different course Of reasoning. The
third decision. written by Associate
justice Bartch. is the dissenting one
relative to the KonOid case, but con-
divorce case. Justice Bartch was a
member of the supreme bench when
the konold decision was handed down.
and he still adheres to his deductions
Of that time when the entire court
concurred with his view
Divorce Case an Issue.
The divorce case resulting in the SUI
IRENE court reversing itself on the
Konold case is that of Monetta Gibbs
VS.. J. +. Gibbs. 1t was brought on
statutory grounds. The action was
brought i'm Willard county. where the
husband and wife lived. The alleged
crime was committed in Flute county.
After the respective parties had in
troduced- their evidence. the case was
submitted and taken under advise
ment. Afterward the court, in
lengthy opinion. held that ''the cause
OF action under section 6. article OF
the constitution. in which il is pro-
Vided that all civil and criminal bust
ness arising in any county must be
tried in such county. unless a change
Of venue is taken. in such cases as may
be provided by law arose out Of Mil
Iard county and in Piute county. If any
where, and that the venue was improp-
erly laid in Willard county. and there
upon dismissed the action.
The decision Of the trial judge was in
effect that inasmuch as the alleged in
jury received was committed in Piute
county. the case must be tried there
That position is the feature OF the
KouOld case.
In its decision the supreme court is
unanimous in the decision that the
Gibbs divorce case should be tried i'm
Willard county. The commission of the
alleged act I'm Piute county is not
looked upon as the injury the Injury to
Tho wife hafncr f1,.. %
untaithfulness upon the wife. who is
p resident of Willard county The
court states further that in this state
The plaintiff i'm a divorce suit must be
! resident of the county in which the
acton is brought FOR a year prior to
he commencement of the action That
being the case if the Konold decision
holds good, the wife would be forced TO
move into Piute county and remain
here year before she could bring her
action for divorce IL is further stated.
hat when the defendant makes an
swer. he valves the question Of venue.
The plaintiff. the decision Of Chief
Justice Baskin continues. was preclud-
ed thereby from suing for and obtain
Ing a divorce in the county i'm which
the alleged act was committed. If
therefore the construction given 20
section D. article Of the constitution
by the court below is sustained. the
plaintiff has no remedy whatever.
Three Judges at Variance.
It is after the disposition of the di-
vorce case that the three judges differ
relative to the constitutional question
involved. Each one of them argues
to the same pOint-the reversal Of the
Gibbs Case-and they unanimously
agree. But when IL comes to the ques-
tons involved i'm the Konold case they
disagree.
All three decisions hinge to a greater
or less degree upon the Interpretation
of the word business" as used in the
following clause of the constitution:
''All civil and criminal business aris-
ing in any county must be tried in
such county, unless a change of venue
be taken, in such cases as provided by
law"
In his opinion Chief Justice Baskin
interprets the word business to mean
cause of action" with that inter
pretatiOn as his basis TO work upon he
overrules the Konold case, arguing in
part as follows:
This court held in the cases Of
White vs.. Rio Grande Western Rail-
way company, 4 Pac. 593 K0nol1 vs..
Rio CYANIDE Western company 16 Utah,
155, etc. that the word business was
used in section ., article 8. constitution,
in the sense Of causes of action.
That that term was used only in
that sense is evident from the fact that
contested causes Of action. and not the
business transacted by courts or in
dividuals, are alone issuable, and the
subject of trials in the civil courts
a trial is the examination before a
competent tribunal Of the facts or law
put in issue I'm a cause for the purpose
OF determining such issue.
1T follows that the term business.
when viewed in connection with the
context of the clause Of the constitu-
tiOn. I'm question. cannot be nationally
construed to apply to any case which
does not involve trial and is not sub
jet 20 a change OF venue. A matter
pending before 4 court in which there
are no cOntesting parties does not in
Volve a trial in any sense Of that word.
and a change of venue in such a mat
ter would indeed be a novelty. A trial
itself, as also matters not involving a
trial. acted upon by a court in one
sense IS court business. From neces-
sity the term business can only apply
to contested causes Of action which
alone are issuable and subject to trial.
That it was used by the trainers of the
constitution only in the sense OF causes
of action. and that the proper venue
in both civil and criminal actions as
at common law, is the place where the
cause of action arises or the crime is
committed, to me seems clear"
Stand Of Justice MeCarty.
Commenting upon the Konold case,
~ n