Cañon City record., 1906-07-05

the facts. than the one here under con-
sideration and showed abundant rea-
sons for injunctive relief. II that rem
cumstances in this class of cases. On
motion to dissolve temporary writ
which had heretofore issued in the
case Judge Overs. admitting that
there was no precedent for his action,
declared that there ought to be one
and proceeded to make a precedent
for himself by denying the motion to
dissolve said writ. On application for
writ of prohibition to the Supreme
Court to suspend further action in the
case by Judge Overs and annull his
temporary writ Of injunction the Su-
preme Court. among other things.
said:
Suppose the defendants are gamb
lers; should, we on that account. take
from them the protection the law
throws around every citizen, guilty
and innocent alike? Does that fact
alone irrespective of the consideration
of plaintiffs property rights author
ize a chancellor to determine their
guilt merely for the purpose of enjoin-
ing them from continuing criminal
practicing? Should we sit supinely by
when appealed 10, and permit an in
ferior court to proceed, wholly with
out Jurisdiction, to infiict summary
punishment for a violation of its IL
| legal orders? Gamblers, as such, are
not entitled TO the protection of the
law. il is true. Neither are murder
ers of thieves the objects of the laws
solicitous care; but one charged
with any crime is entitled to have his
case tried by jury of his peers. and
not by a single judge, however exalt-
ed such Official may be.
We have already said that where an
act. the commission of which consti-
tutes a crime, also produces certain
kind of injury, although 1t does con-
stitute crime; not upon the latter
ground, but upon the ground that the
act Injuries private property right
We know of no case in the books
where a similar perversion OF justice
has occurred. where such an unwar-
ranied abuse OF the process of injunc-
| ton has perpetrated, as was threat
ened in this case in the district court.
However desirable or convenient il
might appear to put stop TO criminal
practices by invoking the eXtraordi-
nary writ of Injunction. we cannot
permit the constitutional and statu-
tory rights of individuals to be thus
violated. We cannot allow the writ OF
Injunction TO usurp and take the place
of the orderly processes OF the crimi-
nal law which the constitution and the
legislature have provided. Such a
course as the district court adopted. II
approved by us, would make of sin
gle Judge both court and pury in the
trial of a criminal action whose sole
object is to punish one for committing
crime; and IL a defendant refused to
obey his injunctive order. there could
be no redress from sentence for con-
tempt imposed for its violation. Such
an unlimited power IL too great to con-
4 fer. at least IL has not yet been intrust-
ed to any judge or court by the con-
stitution or laws of this state. Indeed.
/ the Judge of the district court below,
who. on ex parte hearing. granted the
temporary writ. correctly apprehended
| the object of the action when. in pass
ling upon defendants application to
dissolve the temporary writ, in appa-
rent excuse for its denial. he remark
ed. inter ALA. that The use of the writ
of injunction as a remedy has lately
been largely extended II 1t be true
that no direct precedent can be found,
/ Il is time that one should be created;
and as Murat declared himself to be
his own ancestor. this court will be
\ its own precedent. II is time the in
,reased use OF injunctions in certa.1
directions should at least be so ex-
tended that relief may be afforded in
cases like this
Whether the ancestor was proud
of his offspring. or the maker OF this
precedent is entitled to credit for its
creation is not strictly legal Ques-
ton. We cannot only add that this
| remarkable declaration must speak
for itself As for this court, its high
est obligation is TO observe and en-
force the constitution. whose creature
it is. and IL is contrary to the concep-
tion OF duty entertained by its mem
hers to permit precedents to be made
in defiance OF the constitution"
The writ OF prohibition was accord
ingly awarded ana the injunction writ
heretofore issued In the case was thus
promptly ana forcepully nullihed by
the Supreme Court, exactly ms 1t would
be II one We're granted on this appli-
cation.
RocoguiEing the TACT that offenses
such as are herein complained Of can
not be reached IN equity many states
-----------------