OCR Text |
Show Third District Court. A number num-ber of motions wore presented, including includ-ing one by Mr. Witchcr,. counsel for tho defense in the case- of the city of Salt Lako vt. Ileilbruner, to quash the proceedings, on the ground that the justice under whom the first proceedings proceed-ings was had was a surgeon in-the Mormon Mor-mon rebellion and therefore incapacitated incapaci-tated as an officer under the Hth amendment. In tho case of Clayton vs. Clayton, Messrs. Hempstead & Kirkpatrick for tho defense, set op a denial of the jurisdiction ju-risdiction of the court. Mr Kirkpatrick Kirkpat-rick opened tho argument, contending that the case of Taylor vs. Taylor, in which the supreme court of the Territory Terri-tory decided that notwithstanding the Territorial statute, giving the probate court jurisdistion of divorce cases, that tho district court could take cognizance cogniz-ance ol'a marriage contract whero the pica of fraud nb initio is set up. This was not a contested case, but one side was heard by the court, and if that decision is to be taken as denying deny-ing the legality of tho jurisdiction of t : .i: iuu pruLtaic uuuiui iu uivorce casus, a jurisdiction which has been exorcised for twenty years, and which ten years ago was affirmed by the supreme court, the consequences would bo very serious upon the community. Thousands of persons havo been divorced by that court, and millions of dollars havo been set aside by it for tho benefit of divorced women and cbildreH. It would affect numerous titles to property and the legitimacy of many children, and would create great confusion throughout the Territory. Ter-ritory. Tim idea was enforced by numerous authorities, showing that tho ruling of the courts had been iu- varinhlv rn thin efWr. Tn nnnfliininniUr Kirkpatrick regarded this as one of the most important cases that had ever been bofore this court. Mr. Gilchrist for the plaintiff contended that the organic act of congress con-gress did not invent the Territorial legislature with power to enlarge the common law jurisdiction of probate courts; but if these courts possessed the power of adjudicating divorce auiU, it did not prevent tho district courts of the Territory, as oommon law courts, from having jurisdiction in such cases. He agreed with the counsel coun-sel for the defense as to the wise polioy of the courts iu recognizing previous practices of legal procedure, which affected rights of property; but contended con-tended that this case was not ol this character. Its affect would only bo in the future. He held that tho decision of the case of Taylor vs. Taylor in the supremo court should be recognized by this court, as the latest decision of that tribunal. Some remarks were also made as to tho question of alimony. Mr. Hempstead will follow for the defendant this morning, lo which time the court adjourned. |