The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1913-01-21
l0DFBOUR0W LIQUOR
DECISION REVERSED
Speeiai Co TheSTribune.

;Speelat Co TffsfTTibune.
Provo. Jan. 2o.-In the Fourth dis
,trtcf court today. Judge a. B. Morgan
.-eversed Judge +. c. Loofbourow's deci-
Gslon IN the liquor case. The ruling by
sJudse Morgan was on two cases brought
,ap from the Justices court on appeal
lons is a ease OF illegal sale Of liquor
and the other Is q case OF maintaining
nuisance under the liquor Law. The de-
PENDANTS, moved 10 dismiss the COM
Vincent and Robert Johnson. Nicholes,
Attorpey Robert Anderson, for the de-
/ tfendants. moved to dismuss the com
,,of tho peace did not have Jurisdiction.
trhe motion was opposed by District AT
iforney ]. H. Mcdonald, County Attor-
attorney Jacob Evans, who argued that
I;inder section e0 OF the liquor law. the
sjustices' court had jurisdiction OF natnrai
sbersons IN LIQUOR cases. Atsr the ar ar
sCumense, Judge Morgan denied the mo-
Sion, and said:
Causes No. E7e and No. $50 are
ssses brought 20 this court on appeai
rom the precinct tustce,a court OF
IS s9vG e Ike usss sssss e0sRs against '1
Nichcles, charged with the sale OF
liquor without a. license under sec
lion Of shept1Eo Ios Of Of the Ne Session sse N
The state against Theodore Nicholes
ct al, charging the defendants, With
a nlsdemeanor OF mainta lining q
Hquor nuisance nndor section AZ OF
ssAd laws. Motions are now made
TO set aside the complaints in both
cases.
Utah 1911 commonly known as the
liquor law. appears on It's face
very ambiguous law. There seems
TO have been a conflict IN the en-
- fa-r ~r7~.n
forces In The state legisls ture, one
contending for q law which would
provide exclusive state control OF the
iouor traffic oDd the other contend
liquor traffic by the state and the
municipalities. composing local op-
iion units under the law Botn OF
tl,cse coptcnding forces seem TO have
written into tho law part oS their
IDEAS and the result is a Very am
beuous statute The motions In
bo;h these cases are based on the
"'atm ths, the justice OF the peace
who assumed original jurisdiction IN
tho trial OF ssid causes had in fact
and law no jurisdiction To Try the
,.mc. tae contention being made vhaC
titc penalty provided for the Violation
" thc law in section b6 of the act
Is IN excess of the Jurisdiction OF the
'usticc of the peace.
THIS court takes the view tho,
PERSONS charged with violating this
las arc separated into classes by the
Dsna!tioS prescribed by section 30
hereof 10 Wit: Natural persons.
corporations and licensed persons
vacrc thc judge or justice OF tho
peace may impose as an additional
pcrai;y Z forfeiture.
The court holds tha, the intention
~ tlic Legislature was 10 give the
irsti"o Of the peace original iurisdic
ION over Az persons mentioned In
&c Grsi class and tu confer original
Jurisdiction OF all persons mentioned
~ the other classes who might v!o-
'aic ,lic provisions OF tho act upon
'hc district courts. The complaints
ln both these cases show on their
aces thai the persons charged with
iho violation Of this .Lct coruc with
~ .hc first class and therefore the
court holds that tho justices OF the
peace who tried these cases had
original jurisdiction OF the defend
1nts and the subject matter set forth
In the complaints. and that these
cases arc properly before his court
on appeal from toe justices court.
The motions TO So; aside these COM
plaInts are both denied.
The nuisance case WAS set for trial
Wednesday. The sales case went over
FOR the term on motion OF the state be-
causc the attendance OF some of the Wit
rcs5cs cannot be secured.