Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1903-08-17
Far. Reaching Decision from the
Supreme Court Of the
State Of Utah.
BUSINESS" AND ITS MEANING.
Justices Not Agreed Though Majority
Permit Bringing Suits In
Any County.

Utah has handed down three cor
nered" decision that oyerturns an i'm
portant legal practise hitherto OBJ
tanning In this state under constltu-
tlonal construction The opinion Is
the result OF the consideration Of the
widely known Konold Jurisdiction case
involving the question whether the
legal business arising In any county
must be tried IN the county where II
arises. The courts finding Is that
hereafter transitory civil or crimi-
nal action may be brought In the
county in which the plaintiff resides,
and not necessarily In the county
where the alleged cause OF action
arose, the principles OF common law
being applied, The effect will be
that the courts In the larger counties,
more especially Salt Lake, Weber and
Utah, will be burdened with increased
numbers OF actons-wlth the conse-
ousnt added fees however--being COM
PEELED TO try suits which here
tofore have been tried In 9TH
er or smaller jurisdictions, where
me cause Vi dNNlOn diVots Nv
decision IL declared by lawyers TO be
one OF the most important ever handed
down by the court
All three OF the judges wrote sep
arste opinions. The first one Is by
Chief Justice Baskln, In watch he re-
verses the Konold case, and remands
the divorce case at issue for a new
trial. Justice McCarty concurs with
the chief justice In his conclusions rel
alive 10 the divorce case, but does 30
by a different course Of reasoning. The
third decision, written by Associate
Justice Bartch Ia the dissenting one
relative TO the Konold case but con-
ours on the question OF reversing the
divorce case Justice Bartch was
member OF the supreme bench when
the Konold decision was handed down,
and he still adheres 10 his deductions
81 that time. when the entire court
concurred with his view.
FROM DIVORCE CASE.
This decision Is the outgrowth OF the
divorce case Of Monetta Gibbs VS. j, b.
Gibbs, and ia a complete reversal Of a
former decision OF the same tribunal
though under different personnel The
action was brought on statutory
grounds In Millard county, where the
husband and wife lived. The alleged
crime was committed In Piute 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 g. article or
the Constitution, In which II is pro-
vided that ''al civl and criminal tus-
nes arising In any county must be
tried In such county, unless change
OF Venue IL taken. In such cases as may
he provided by law, arose out OF MIL
lard county and In Pluto county II 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
fury received was committed In Piute
county, the case must be tried there.
That position is the feature OF the
Konold case,
In its decision the supreme court Is
unanimous In the decision that the
Gibbs divorce case should be tried In
Millard county. The commission OF the
alleged act In Piute county Is not
iokcd upon as the Injury, the injury to
the wife being the effect Of the alleged
unfaithfulness Of the wife, who is
n resident Of Willard county. The
court states further that In this state
the plaintiff. in a divorce suit must be
A resident Of the county In which the
action Is brought for a year prior to
the commencement Of the action. That
helnR the case, n the Konold decision
holds good, the wife would be forced 10
move into Piute county and remain
there a year before she could bring her
action for divorce 1t Ia further stated
that when the defendant makes an
aver. 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 In which
the alleged act was committed. II
therefore, the construction given 10
section s. article 8 OF the Constitution
nv the court below Ia sustained, the
plaintiff has no remedy Whatever
oBusINEss"-ITs MEANING.
1, is after the disposition Of the d.
vorce case that the three Judges diner
relative TO the constitutional question
Involved. Each one OF them argues
10 the same point--the reversal OF the
Gibbs case-and they UNANIMOUSLY
agree. But when Il comes TO the ques-
tons involved In the Konoid case they
disagree.
All three decisions hinge to a greater
,r less degree upon the Interpretation
N the word business as used In the
following clause OF the Constitution
IAN civil and criminal business arts
ing In any county must be tried IN
such county, unles change OF venue
he taken. In such cases as provided oy
law"
I'm his opinion chief Justice Baskin
ln,erprets the word business 10 mean
causes OF action" With that inter-
nretntlon as his basis TO work upon ne
nyerrules the Konold case, arguing IN
part rs follows: -,
This court held In the cases OF
White Va Rio Grande Western Rall-
wav company, II Pac. 500, Konold VS.
Rlo Grande Western company l6 Utah'
isk etc that the word business was
nsed I'm section 5, article S. Constitution
In the sense OF causes OF action.
THAT that term was used only IN
hat sense Is evident from the fact that
eontested causes OF action and not the
business transacted by courts or m
dlyIduals. are alone issuable' and the
subject OF trials In the civil courts
"a trial Is the examination before
,ompetent tribunal OF the facts or law
mi In issue In q cause for the purpose
N determining such issue.
III follows that the term business.
when viewed In connection with lhe
,ontext OF the clause Of the Constitu-
lion. In question, cannot be ratlonaliy
,onstrued to apply TO any case whleh
Toes not involve trial and Is not SUP
loci TO a change Of venue. \ matter
bending before court in which there
are no contesilng parties does rot IN
solye trial In any sense OF that word
Nd change OF venue In such q mat,
e. would indeed be q novelty A trial
Rself as also matters not involving
E,eI acted upon by a court IN one
Sn,e is court business. From neces.
~ tho term business can only apply
contested causes OF action which