The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-01-11
MILK ORDINANCE
HELD EFFECTIVE
Supreme Court Holds With the
City on Important
Legislation.
JUDGMENT Is AFFIRMED
IN 4 SHEEP TAN CASE
Affirmation Of Lower Court Is
Also Given in Three
Other Cases.


Of milk III Salt Lake was upheld by the
supreme court in an opinion handed
down Monday. The court holds that un-
der the general statutes of tho state
giving the city the power 10 pass ordin
anccs regulating the sale of meats and
other provisions within the city limits,
il can also regulate The sale of milk.
This matter was raised in the case of .
salt Lake City against II. l.. Howe .
appellant. Howe was arrested under
the pure food ordinance for selling milk |
III the city without first obtaining per
nit from thc food and dairy commits
sioner. He was found guilty in the city |
court and fiNcd $50. lie then appealed |
10 the district court, where he was
again found guilty and fined the same
amount. He then appealed 10 the su.
prcmc court.
In his appeal be contcndcd that the |!
city had no power to pass an ordinance
regulating the sale of milk, for the rea
son that it had only such powers in
that respect as have been either cX-
pressly or by necessary implication con /
fcrrcd npon it BY statnte. He contendcd
that under :he statutes of the state no
such power was conferred upon the city. |
IlOlQluS VI VIC SOuiI'
The supreme court holds that the pure
food ordinance III regard TO the sale ol
milk IN the city is valid. In reaching
this decision il refers 10 subdivision ~
section 200 of the Compiled Laws of
Utah. 1907, which i'll part is as follows
''Io provide for the place and manner
OF tho sale of meats poultry, FISH. but
ter. cheese lard, vegetables, flour, meal,
and all other provisions, The court
az ,,,iI h6
of tho subdivision cited included IN
'Eothcr provisions and hence declares
that the ordinance regulating the sale
of milk is not inconsistent with, nor docs
IT coufIavcnc the statute quoted above.
The Judgment oil the lower court Is at
firmcd and the ordinance declared valid
Chief Justice Straup wrote the opinion
of the court. which is corcurrcd III by
Justices t'rick and McCarty
Another Animation.
In the case OF William Bown, Jr.-
appellant, against William T. Owens.
treasurer Of Garfield county. the
supreme court affirmed the Judgment
of the lower court, Bown sued 10 re-
cover the value Of Isl head of sheep
which were levied upon by the treas
urcr on October 3. 1906. and sold for
taxes due on Bowu s herd The amount
of taxes due on the entire band OF sheep
numbering about 10000, was S352.fO
The lower court rendered Judgment IN
favor of Treasurer Owens.
Bown claimed that he was resident
of Wavnc county and that his sheep
were assessed in that county aud he
paid taxes on them there, The evidence
showed that he had filed out n state
mcnt for the treasurer Of Garfield coun.
tv showing that he had about 10000
sheen which graZed in Garfield county
and he was accordingly assessed for
;hcuI. Later he went before the county
commissioners and declared that only
part Of them oraZcd IN Garfield county,
and hence ne was assessed for only 5000
sheep.
The treasurer introduced in evidence
in the lower court the statement made
ont by Bown showing the number OF
sheep which he said grazcd in Garfield
county and upon which the tax WAS lev
led lie also showed hat the sheep
never wcrc taken from Bown. but that
they were sold 10 one of Bown ON
plovccs and paid for bv Bown S own
check. Upon that showing the lower
court rendered judgment in favor of
the treasurer. This Judgment the SUI
prone court a1irms. Chief Justice
Sirnup wrote the opinion OF the court
which is concurrcd in bv justices
Frick and McCartN.
Quickly Disposed Of.
Inc case OF Bonn Nc'sulIpuS'l-
William Mccullough. administrators of
the estate of Mary A. Mccullough, de
ceased, is disposed Of in very short or
dor by the supreme court for the Tea-
son that no bill of exceptions was filed.
In 1901. plaintiff brought suit for di-
vorcc against Mary 4. McC Cullough, but
she filed cross-complaint and was
granted decree and was also awarded
an interest in certain real estate owned
by her husband. Later Mccullough at.
tonlntcd to get the court 10 modify the
decree i'm relation 10 the real property.
but the court refused his motion: Mrs.
Mccullough died in zoos and Mctul-
Tough then had the administration of her
estate made n party 10 the action and
AGAIN asked the court 10 modify the de
cree His motion was again denied
and he appealed TO the supreme court. !
Because Of his failure 10 tIe bill OF
exceptions. The supreme court holds tnat
IT. cannot properly review the proceed
inps of the lower court. hence If atflrms
the action OF the lower court. Cher
Justice Straup wrote the opnlon OF Inc
court which is concurrcd IN by hls
associates.
Justice Frick wrote The opinion Of
the court affirming the Judgment % the
lower court IN tho case Of George y
Gibson against +. T.. McGurrln ana "lte
and stephen Ilays aud Wife, appellants. |
and Charles Boattchcr and others. de-
PENDANTS. The action was brought 10
quiet title to l7i, acres of land i'll sec
lion 80, township ] north. range | west,
Salt Lake meridian. The lower court |
rendered Il decree IN favor Of plaintiff. I
II WAS contended by the appellants that |
The complaint should have alleged that
the plaintiff was in the possession Of
tho land in controversy aS well az The
fact that he was the owner of the title |!
tn the same The lower court held that /
thc complaint was sufficient in that !
respect and the supreme court holds I
likewise and a0irmS he decree Of the
loWer court.
Lower Court Upheld.
In he ease of the Sierra Nevada
Lumber company, appellant, against Me-
Cormicll 4 GRAY, contractors, the HOuS- /
ton Real Estate & Investment company /
and Margaret II. Salisbury, III her own
right and as cXccutriX of the estate of .
Harry Brain. deceased. the Judgment 1
of the lower court was affirmed by