OCR Text |
Show COURT PROCEEDINGS. Third DislVict Court:, McKnan, C. J-Pros J-Pros ding- DECIiMllliR TKRM TENTH DAY. Friday, Dec. ISih, 1874. Court convened at 10 o'clock, a. m. Emma ITill Consolidated M. C.!o. . Hult Lake M Co., ft. nl ; Robertson it McBriilo withdrew their appear anco ns defendants' attorneys, and Boxkin & Do Wolfe were, substituted. Soloman J. Denpain f. Flagstaff S. M. Co. ; same ai above. Robertson & McBride t''. Flagstaff S. M Co.: dism'ssed on motion of plaintiffs' attorney. Morris & EvatiB vs. Davenport M. Co.; judmont by default was entered against the defendants. Isaac S. Watterman vs. W. IT. Lee; demurrer Ic the amended answer sustained. The people, etc. vs. Nicholas Lawless; Law-less; indictment for murder; demurrer demur-rer to tho plea in abatement; District Wtorney Carry for the prosecution, Robortsou & McBride for the defense. The court delivered the following ruling: 1. Tho probata courts of Utah havu nt and novor navo hud jurisdiction in criminal crim-inal en es. 2. Nevertheless, judgments rendered by tliorn, nii'1 exec led, and tli t'mi! to appeal ap-peal from which had expired prior to the J-ld diiy ..I'.lune, a e dt-clnrcd by :iut of ,ritrns to ho validated and con-Ur..wl. con-Ur..wl. 3. Such a judgment, wlien ph-udcl in iibutouK lit, will bo treated by t in court as a bar toil pm-eculion for tho Mime, olfenso in t is court aince iho pa.-snge of -aid act nfc mgre". i. This oouru will not enquire, whether it wna competent for congreas to validate n void judgment. The indictment herein was filod on the 4th day of Decomber, 1&74. It charges the defendant with having murdered one George Snivwly, on the ioth day ol February, 3874. To this indictment the defeudant interpoaea a plea in abatement, which will bo sul'Stantiiilly set torlh in the opinion ol the court The people demur to the plea as not sufficient in law to bar runner pruaecution for the aaid crime of murder. William Carey, TJ. S. attorney for the people. JuhnJR. McBride for the defendant. McKeau, C. J. The defendant allege, al-lege, m his plea in abatement, that mi the mouth of M.rch, 1S74, he was indicted by a grand jury of the pro-onte pro-onte court ot Tooele county, for tho same offence hero ch trged against nim; that in the same month he was tried in tli.it court on that indictment, was convicted of the crime ot manslaughter, man-slaughter, and sentenced to inip is- inmentand was imprisoned therefor, nd that no appwil has ever been taken from, the said judgment against nim. Do these fact.-', taken as true, constitute con-stitute a defence to the indictment in Uns court ? This court and the territorial ter-ritorial supreme court, have repeatedly repeat-edly held that tne prob.ite courts have, no criminal jurisdiction; nrigrtws, ia the third section of "Au act in relation to courts at.d judicial offioeia ui the ter itoryof Utah," approved Tune 23, 1874, enacted th it "prob its courts, in their respective counties, iail have jurisdiction in the settlement settle-ment of the elites of decedents, and in matters of guardianship and other like matters; but otherwise they shall have no civil, chancery, or criminal nirisdiction whatever; ' and in the ciise of Ferris vs. Hiyley, et. a, the national supreme court has Bhown that those courts never have possessed general jurisdiction, either civil or criminal, at law or iD equity. But in the ant ahove referred to, approved June 23, 1874, congress euavted that ' All judgment- and decrees de-crees heretofore rendered by the pro-b;ite pro-b;ite courts, which hive been executed execut-ed and the time to appeal front which has by the existing laws of aid territory ter-ritory expir- d, are hereby vulidated and confirmed." There would have been no re;ison in attempt! g thua to validate such judgments of Probate courts as had been Uw'ully rendered and were already valid, and this provision pro-vision was clearfy intended to validate such invalid judgments as came within with-in its terms. Tho judgment pleaded by the defeudant might have been appealed from within i hi ty days tit the furthest. (Laws of Utah, p. 31, sees, 2'J, 30. p. 66, sec. 23. ) But no apival was taken. Whether it was competent for congress con-gress to validate void judgments, is a question whicu this court will not die cuss, leaving it to bQ cousidered elsd-where. elsd-where. Tne judgmen'. pleaded by the defendant belongs to the class of judgments which congress has declared de-clared are validated and confirmed, It is therefore held to be a bar to this indictment, and the demurrer to the plea is overruled. Flaiutifl'entered an exception to the above ruling. Defendanta counsel coun-sel moved tor the diacharge of the prisoner, which was granted. The United States vs. Isabel Anderson; Ander-son; indictment for illegal voting. The district attorney asked have to enter a n-tlc joscquij which was granted. The people, etc., vs. Thomas Mo-Mahon; Mo-Mahon; indictment for larceny; the deteudiint was arraigned and pleaded not guilty; released on bonds ol $25J to appear from day to day. Thepeop'e, etc , vs. A. T. Delano; indictment ior forgery and for uttering utter-ing a forged check; District Attorney W' y nd Z S.iow tor th people, J-L. J-L. Rawlins for the defense The prosecution introduced aeveral wit-nesaes, wit-nesaes, but no evidence- was given by the dtfenae. Soon after 2 o'clock the case wosfiiven to the jury, who re tired till five o'clock, when they were brought into court; not having yet ngre.ea upon a veruiet iney asseu y' lie discharged, but upon receiving additional ad-ditional instructions from the court they reached a verdict, rinding the defendant guilty under tho second count of the indictment uttering a forged pheclp. Court adjourned till Saturday morning at 1U o'clock. |