Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1907-03-16
COURT REBuKEs
JUSTICE DURAND.
-----~------------.-----.------
Typical Case Comes up Before
Judge Lewis Court This
Morning.
APPEAL PAPERS UNDATED.
Defects In the LAW Were Clearly Dem-
onsiratcd In tn. Case at Bar
Tlais Morning,
APPEAL PAPERS UNDATED.

The pointing cut of several defects In
the statutes governing justices courts
and a robuke for Justice OF the Peace
Durard of Murray ch; ~eterised this
mornings session Of Judge Lewis d.
vision OF the district court.
The attention of the court wns drawn
to the fact thar certain papers In an
appeal sent up from the Murray JUS
tice did not contain an alleged neces-
sary date. Judge Lewis said that such
condition would not be surprising.
as papers from that source seldom were
In order.
In the case al bar, however it de-
veloped that 1t was not made tnanda
tory upon Il justice OF the peace TO SUP
ply certain data in his transcripts, and
here was wherein one Of the defects Of
the law came. For instance, a motion
liz made by defendant for Il new trial,
the justice allows the matter TO go OH
for an indefinite period and finally
oTerruies the motion II the defendanJ
wishes to appeal to the district court
he Is supposed to do SO within 50 days
from the date of the overriding OF his
motion for new trial. But when WAS
the motion overrufed? There Is absO-
lutely nothing In the transcript to am
swer the question The plaintiff may
claim that the motion WAS oyerruied
the same day that IL was flied with tho
court, or upon amy other date to suit
his own convenience and insist that
the appeal shall lie within 30 days
from "A date proposed by himself. In
a court such as the one al Murray,
whore is there any Justice for the de-
fendant? argue the lawyers.
In the case before Judge Lewis to-
day, the defense sought to prove that
10. .ln1
ruled "a days after Judgment was first
rendered The piaintiT endeavored TO
have the appeal dismissed upon che
grounds that II was MOI taken within
30 days from an unnamed date, or four
days before the outcome OF the pending
motion was decided
Again the platinum contended that
the appeal should have been taken
within 80 days from the first rendition
OF Judgment leaving out of the uues-
tlon the motion for a new trial entirely.
Such a proposition was declared by de-
fendant's attorney to be absurd, and
YET such an Interpretation may be more
or less reasonably made from the sta
tutes.
Section 9744 Of the statutes provides
thar appeal from a Justices court may
be taken within 30 days from the rem
dItion of Judgment Section of article
s. Constitution OF Utah says Appeals
shall lie from the final Judgment OF
justices OF the peace" The word final
being left out OF section 3744 OF the
statutes evidently puts that statute
out of harmony with the Constitution.
The subject presents hts delernma
II person moves for new trial. he
should at the same time appeal to the
district court. for the Justice may take
W the entire 80 days in taking action
upon the motion n the ruling Is favor
able to the person making the motion,
the appeal Is OF mo- avail and he IS out
the amount of the costs for filing the
same In the district conrs, 1t is tam
gled proposition and, says the law
yers. evidently needs wise legislation to
make II clear to the legal fraternity. To
say nothing OF the layman,