Show THE COMMITTEES IHDPOKT F Pernicious Practices That Brought Justice Jus-tice Into Contempt The report of the investigating committee commit-tee was not read but simply handed down to the clerk with instructions that it be tiled The report was as follows To tho Honorable the Supreme Court of the Territory of Utah The undersigned committee appointed by the court on the 15th day of March 1893 pursuant to the order hereunto annexed an-nexed to inquire into and certain cer-tain charges broughtagainst Commissioners Commission-ers Martin and Moyer herewith respectfully respect-fully report I The committee organized and summoned the said commissioners who appeared before them in person and by council C I F Loofbourow appearing for Commis missioner Martin and John W Judd appearing for Commissioner Moyer the complaining parties being represented by Messrs A H Hurd John M Cannon and Charles Baldwin In the investigation of the charges the committee sat and heard testimony and arguments for four days commencing Wednesday the 22nd day of March and ending on Monday the 27th day of March Persuant to the direction of the court the committee secured the presence and services of Fred T McGumn a stenographer steno-grapher who kindly volunteered to serve in the nremises without compensation until paid by the government and ex amincd the following witnesses Joseph Bush VtF Newgatc Carl Dammann C A Reed J C Cook Mrs Sullivan John Sulllran J G Taysurn jr J B Taylor James Bonan Alexander Sibley H Ward S C Ewing Thomas H Con noly Gustave Kroeger S B Marks O H Dogge L L Archer George A Burgon John W Snoll jr F D Parsons Emanuel Kann Joseph T Richards A B Pratt Richard Rich-ard Cabell S E Jenkins Elijah Marshall Mar-shall Mrs M J Hardin Edwin Pace and the accused commissioners were also sworn and examined fully in the premises prem-ises FINDINGS OF THE COMMITTEE The evidence disclosed and the committee com-mittee so find and report that since this investigation was ordered Commissioner Martin paid over to the county the sum of 17 heretofore collected and received by him as fines adjudged acainst and paid by defendants in his court as commission towit 15 paid in the case of the people vs JDamrnann Auc 17 1892 1 in the case of the people va Thompson Aug 11 1892 51 in the case of the people Freed paid Dec 20 1S92 WORKED A COMPLAINING WITNESS I That in December 1892 one John Phillips Phil-lips was charged before said commissioner with an offense against the people of the territory of Utah and an examination had that pending said examination the said commissioner asked the complaining witness to pay him the commissioners costs in advance and to wait until he the commissioner had obtained an allowance and payment thereof from the territary or the government when he said commissioner commis-sioner agreed to repay said cost to the said complaining witness and thereupon the said costs were paid to the said cora missioner by the complaining witness when the defendant was bound over by the commissioner to the grand jury which body ignored the said charge THE DAMMANN CASE t That in August 1892 one Dammann was chargedbefora the said commissioner with selling liquor on Sunday in violation of the law of this territory That two complaints were filed charging the said Dammann with separate offenses of the same kind and that on or about the 17th day of August after a trial the said Dammann was convicted upon the first Charge whereupon the said commissioner imposed a fine of e5 and taxed costs against him in the sum of 4650 Thereupon There-upon on the same day the said commissioner com-missioner remitted of said fine and apart a-part of said coats and the said Dammann settled and paid the remainder of fine l ti and costs so adjudged against him That immediately he was called upon to answer the second complaint charging a similar offense at another time which upon request of the prosecuting prose-cuting witness was then and there dismissed upon condition of the said Dammann defendant then and I there paying to the commissioner the sum of 5 costs which the < defendant then and there paid That this second I case against Dammann was not docketed and no record was made thereof I THE HOBBS SETTLEaiEXT I That on or about the 17th day of April 1892a woman accompanied jy one Joseoh I Bush appeared before the said commissioner commis-sioner and made complaint which was written out and yorified by her charging one Hobbs with the crime of adultery alleged al-leged to have been committed with the complaining witness That while the 1 commissioner was preparing the complaint 4I com-plaint the said Bush left the commissioners commis-sioners office and procured from the defendant in the complaint Hobbs the sum of 25 in settlement of the case That Bush returned to commissioners office with tho money on the same day and within an hour or two of the making of the complaint and while the complaining com-plaining vitness was yet in the office and there in the presence of the commissioner delivered the money to the complaining witness who thereupon paid Bush S3 for his trouble and the commissioner 5 for costs as alleged by him and retained the remainder namely f5 That thereupon the proceedings were quashed that case was never docketed ana norecord made of It and the original complaint was not j i found nor produced before the committee commit-tee tho commissioner claiming that it was lost or stolen No warrant was itJ I 1 IJ L sued nor was Hobbs under arrest I neither was Bush an officer at the time I NEVER DOCKETED i In another case one Freed made complaint com-plaint before said commiosioner charging himself with the crime of assault or of battery ana was thereupon fined 1 and costs This was in December 1892 and the said fine has been paid over to the county as heremabove stated but said casa was never docketed and no record tr ereof made COMMISSIONER MARTINS METHODS We further find from the evidence that Commissioner Martin permitted the I bringing of civil suits in his court upon the understanding that the plaintiffs were I not expected and should not be required I to pay costs of court unless and until the same were collected from this defendants particularly was this so with one Alexander Alexan-der Sibley who brought a numoer of cases befone him upon the arrangement that costs were not to be paid unless collected col-lected from the defendants Sibley was collector for the Workingmens Cooperative Cooper-ative association and had charge of some of its collections He brought collection suits I before this commissioner and served the summonses in the same charging and receiving when the costs were collected from the defendant the sum of 2 in each case The following letter written by the commissioner to the Wbrkingmens Cooperative Co-operative association we find sets forth the agreement in the cases brought by Sibley VVorldngmcns Coop Dear SlrMr Sibley and I understand each other in the matter of costs and our arrangement is that all costs In the suits begun bv Sibley without your express instructions to bring l suit I am to gel my costs of the suits filed as the money Is collected and not collect costs 01 you unless you accept the I money on any of these cases without our knowledge I r r5f I h lC fl t1t OyUlcOo sk edge otherwise I shall collect my costs from the business on the docket and not from you C H MARTIN Commissioner A SIMILAR AGREEMENT We further find from the evidence that Reed Crook collectors had substantially substan-tially the same understanding with Commissioner Com-missioner Martin and were permitted to t and did bring civil suits before him with the understanding that the costs were to be paid only when collected from the defendant de-fendant These collectors brought a large number of cases in which as private process servers they were permitted to serve the summonses and where the costs were collected f 2 was paid to them in a number of cases1 in about twentyone cases and S3 in two cases The evidence does not disclose to us what became of the other dollar in each of the twentyone cases It also appears from the evidence in this case that Commissioners Moyer and Martin practiced in each others court MOYERS RECORD As to Commissioner Moyer we find from the evidence that he was appointed ap-pointed commissioner by this court on or about June 10 1891 that he carried over into his docket from the docket of his predecessor about one hundred hun-dred civil cases and that during the time he has held the office 956 additional cases were commenced before him that he had twentyseven criminal cases and that at the date when this inquiry was ordered he had in his hands 83 collected and received re-ceived by him as fines during the years 1891 and 1892 which he has since paid to the county that in one case the People vs William Hammond the defendant I was charged with a felony towit assault I with intent to kill and after the hearing and the examination the commissioner adjudged the defeudant guilty of an assault as-sault and fined him 125 with 3551 costs That the defendant paid into court f5440 and was released upon bin own recognizance recogniz-ance and that the remainder of the fine was never paid Said costi as appears from the testimony of the commissioner were made up as follows Warrant fl j taking appeal bond 150 six subpomas 150 swearing ten witnesses fl hearing hear-ing for continuance 3 j oho days trial 5 officers fees f 1450 witnesses fees 8 In another case the People vs Terrell the payments of costs were made by the defendant as a condition for a change of venue We further find that in another criminal t case this commissioner received a certified certi-fied or guaranteed check for 100 on account ac-count of bail for the defendant and passed the same to his own bank account ac-count and so kept the money until he finally paid it over to the owner and that he was generally in the habit of mingling public moneys received as fees or on account ac-count of bail with his own SOLICITED ACCOU SIt S-It appears from the evidence that Commissioner Com-missioner Moyer solicited accounts for collections and in one instance offered to buy accounts for collection if the nrice could be arranged satisfactorily It doesnt appear and we do not find that the intention was to bring the suits on accounts so obtained in his own court but he aid bring suits on collections and practiced in the courts of other commissioners commis-sioners In a very large number of cases before him process was served by private individuals indi-viduals and the official fees therefore charged and collected from the defendants defend-ants The same Alexander Silbey abovementioned above-mentioned brought a number of suits before Commissioner Moyer Silbey testified tes-tified thatMoyer and other commissioners commission-ers solicited him to bring business before them That he had no agreement but understood and expected that he was to be permitted to serve the process in the cases and he did so That hohad another arrangement with Moyer whereby he was to receive a percentage of fees earned by Moyer in other legal business that he would bring to him and that in pursuance pursu-ance of said understanding he did bring to him business aud received compensation compensa-tion therefor That ho had a general account ac-count with Commissioner Moyer made up of sums duo him for serving I process and an account of the percentage per-centage or sums due for the legal le-gal business brought by him to Moyer that finally the parties had a disagreement disa-greement and Sibley quit doing business with Moyer partly on the ground that he thought he did not whack up fair This refers however only as appears from the evidence to fees in the district court in cases procured for Moyer as an attorney by Sibley We find from the evidence that other parties also were permitted to bring suits before this commissioner upon the same terms as to the payment of costs That of the total number of 956 civil cases brought before the commissioner as aforesaid 423 were brought by one firm of attorneys and one of whom was also a commissioner and before whom Commissioner Com-missioner Moyer brought cases and practiced prac-ticed That as a general rule no costs have been paid in these cases except as collected from the defendants and that 200 or more are yet pending upon the docket of the commissioner unsettled and unsatisfied in which the costs have not been paid paidA A MERCHANTS TESTIMONY It is testified by a prominentmerchant of this city that one member of this firm of attorneys solicited his business and that the understanding was generally that costs were not to be paid unless collected col-lected from the defendants This particular partic-ular member of said firm did not testify before us the other two members and the commissioner deny any agreement In the premises AN AGREEMENT HAD We deem it important in this particular particu-lar instance to determine whether there was an express agreement between the commissioner and this firm of attorneys It is a fact that in other cases such au agreement was had and there seems to have been no difficulty in these parties accomplishing the purpose just as effectively effec-tively as if thero had been an express agreement EXCESSIVE AND IMiEGATi FEES It is further disclosed by the testimony that in at least one instance this commissioner commis-sioner permittedthis firm of attorneys to take four or five summonses from his office signed by him in blank for the purpose pur-pose of suit The evidence shows that both commissioners commis-sioners in default cases generally charged 350 which includes a f3 per diem fee that as a rule the costs are not itemized in their dockets and that generally the fee bill for United States commissioners has been followed Thatunder the provisions or the United States statutej which permita commissioners to charge the same compensation com-pensation for services is allowed clerks C1 1e C i > Jj both commissioners have charged what is termed a docket fee for making dockets and indexing etc The statute authorizing author-izing this charge wan repealed in 1SSO We are of the opinion that the charging of a trial per diem fee in default cases of docket fees of the 2 service fee when paid to private individuals and of the fees prescribed for United States commissioners commis-sioners in the United States statutes in civil cases or In territorial criminal cases are illegal and in this particular we find that both commissioners charged excessive exces-sive fees We are of the opinion that there is no authority law for the taxing of costs against defendants in criminal casds upon the dismissal of the charges against them nor the taxing of costs against the complaining com-plaining witnesses in cases of felony where examinations are held by the committing com-mitting magistrate nor at all except as provided by the statutes in cases where a defendant charged with an offense within the jurisdiction of the magistrate is tried and acquitted and the prosecution is regularly reg-ularly adjudged to be unfounded and malicious ma-licious We are further of the opinion that the exacting of commissioners costs from a defendant charged with a crime as a condition con-dition of an order for a change of venue is illegal and an extortion W S direct attention at-tention to the law of the territory which makes it a misdemeanor for a justice of the peace to neglect to pay over any fine received by him within thirty days after its collection A PERNICIOUS PRACTICE We think that the practice of soliciting accounts for collection by the commissioners commis-sioners whether as judicial officers or as attorneys is improperand in this particular par-ticular it is hard to separate the personality person-ality of the judge from the attorney That the prosecuting of suits as a rule to to be brought in their courts by commissioners commis-sioners or justices of the peace with the understanding that costs are not to be paid by the plaintiffs and be satisfied only as they are collected from the de feniants in execution is scandalous and has a direct tendency to corrupt the administration ad-ministration of justice and to oppress defendants I de-fendants We think the practice of permitting private collectors who bring suits upon many accounts before the commissioners or justices of the peace to become the process servers of these courts has also alike a-like tendency SERIOUS STATE OF AFFAIRS The evidence in these cases discloses in our judgment a state of affairs that demands de-mands an immediate remedy We direct attention to the fact that there are fifty eight commissioners of this court now in the territory six of whom are in this city These officers do not give bonds and are in no wise responsible to the people whose affairs they so largely administer It would seem that there is a struggle for existence between some at least of judicial judi-cial officers and that they rival each other in their endeavors to secure business for their respective courts If these officers could be required to give bonds and if I their number could be reduced to meet the actual wants of the community we believe that many or the evils complained of and found to exist in these cases would disappear A SUMMING UP In conclusion we find that both commissioners com-missioners as hereinbefore stated suf ferred improper acts aud practices to the manifest detriment and perversion of justice and to the oppression of litigants and which tended to bring the administration adminis-tration of justice into contempt We return herewith the petition and affidavit of charges with a copy of the order appointing this committee together to-gether with a statement in writing presented pre-sented to the committee after the close of the hearing Respectfully C S VARIAN ANDREW HOWAT THOMHS MAKSHALL March 29 1893 The resignation of Commissioner Booth has been hanging fire for several months lIe has been charged with practicing in other commissioners courts and the bar had intended to include him with Martin and Moyer in their petition but decided not to do so when it was learned that he intended to resign There was no other business of any kind transacted and court was adjourned until April 15 |