Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1907-03-22
Supreme Court Hands Down Two
Opinions ON the Skeen
Campaign.
AFFIRMING THE JUDGMENTS.
Robert Ii. Prime and Thomas E.
Browning We're the Defendants In
Original Actions Brought

The supreme coatt today handed
down two opinions in the famous Og-
den ecandal cases. Affirming the jndg'
ments Of the lower court In both BY
the opinion of the court In the case OF
n. Skeen VS.. Robert b. Paine, APP
Nr i1"er removed from the
Office OF councilman in Ogdcn and Will
4a.I slaQ out 5keen
,nalsea IN his complaint that Paine
accented Illegal fees WHALE serving as
ncilnaan and also charged him with
wlful neglect of his official duty
in the lower court the defendant de-
INJURED 70 the complaint on the special
ground that II stated two causes OF &C
ton as one cause. This demurrer was
overru.ed and the derendant answered
admitting that he accepted the fees,
but claiming that he had repaid the
same TO Ogden City anu that he re-
signed from the Office and WAS reap
pointed and was serving under his
reappointment az the time the action
was filed.
He offered 10 prove at the trial that
the fees were repaid and also offered
TO show his previous good character
and integrity hut the court refused to
allow him to DO SO. The court then in
structed she jury 10 return verdict
OF guilty. OF aeSepting RIAgaI fees, bar
not guilty OF aegiec1 OF saIty and such
a verdict was returned and the judg
ment of removal from office was pro-
uounced-
The action OF the lower court in
overriding the demurrer and refusing
10 permit the defendant to prove that
he had repaid the fees and also 10
show his good character are cited as
errors by the defendant.
The supreme court holds that the
leyt~N al =
the demurre for the reason that 1t in
structed the jury to return a verdict
OF not guilty on the second charge
made against Paine and hence took
that matter entirely out or the hands
of the jury. Neither did the co nrt
err In refusing 10 allow the defend
ant to prove his good character for
the reason such proof could not In
any way effect the admission of ac-
ceptIng Illegal fees. AS 10 the repay
ment of the fees the court holds that
that did not and could not atone for
his violation of the law,
The contention than the defen dant
resigned his office and was serving
under a re&ppoIntmen1 can not hold
good according to the opinion OF the
COURT. The records show that ne re-
signed and was immediately reap.
pointed by the council ON the Same
night and before any other business
was transacted and hence did not sur
render his office at all On that mat.
ter the court says further;
True. the appellant would have 10
re-qualify. but all this was a mere
matter of rorT. and to tolerate such
proceedings and permit them to stand
as It defense would indeed be trav-
esty OF both law and Justice"
AS 70 the point that the section un-
der which the action was brought is
nj = hR IanlA Is 4 heaH
IL Is not. and that private individuals
may bring an action for the removal
OF officers not to be removed by inn
parchment aud such actions do not
have 10 be brought in the name Of the
state.
The Judgment Of the lower court
IL affirmed. The opinion WAS written
by Justice Frlck and concerned in by
Justice Straup
CHIEF OF POLICE CASE.
The either case which WAS affirmed
lis thar of j. D. Skeen, appellant. VS.
Thongs g. Browning, chief OF police
of ogden. Skeen charged the chief
with wilful aud negligent Disregard
Of his official dutles imposed by the
city ordinances Of ogden. The com.
plant was filed in the district court
In the same manner as that In the
Paine case and defendant delmurred
to it on the ground that The court had
no jurisdiction OF The subject matter
OF the action The demurrer was sus-
tanned by the lower court and the ac-
tlon was dismissed,
II was cOntsn led by the attorney
for the chi # that the legislature gave
the power OF appointing and removing
such officers as the chief OF police to
the mayor and CITY council and hence
the court had no Jurisdiction over the
subject Of his removal. This contention
Is upheld by the supreme court which
holds that a. general rule, tho
courts have no Jurisdiction In such
court Is affirmed, This opinion was
also written by Justice F'rlck and COM
CURED In by tho other members ~ the
court