OCR Text |
Show MINING RECOIIDERS- FKIX Tin- Monk Decision ostained by the tu- j preiue l.oiirt. The supreme court yesterday sustained the Judgment of the Third district eosttl la the (tat "f the People vs.. lames T. Monk, lie was the mining recorder ot the Big Cotton, wood district, and was convicted of over- . charging for recording locations. Judge Mirer handed down the opinion, Justices Anderson and Blaekburu concurring. It Was as follows: j The defendant in this ease was convicted : on an Indictment found under section :.'T'.K C. L., lvs, fora in.si'.euieanor in demaading , and receiving illegal fees for recording a mining location a- recorder for the Big t. ot. tonwood mining district. By the custom Mid local laws of this mining dislriit. 1 adopted by the miners, the fee for recording a mining loeatlou claim was fixed al to. I the defendant, clieTing be had a right to demand and receive :l for such service, under un-der the law. as he understood it, demanded the sum, aud received it under protest of the party paving it. I'nder the lawaot congress, said the court, reported in C. L. of Utah, p. I'M, "The miners of each mining district may make regulations not to cjiulliet with the laws of the United States, or the law of the state or territory in which the mining district is sit- Ufttcd, governing the location aud manner of ; recording, etc." Under section 71Hi Com. piled Laws lSs "Mining recorders are allowed al-lowed the. same fees for recordiug aud making mak-ing copies of record in their c ustody as are allowed by law for the services to county recorders." "And for receiving larger fees for such services than those herein provided, such mining recorder shall he deemed guilty of a misdeuieauor, and upon conviction be subject to the penalties i provided for in section 5459, Compiled Laws I888. i'nder section SMS of the same act i the county recorder's fees for tho services performed by the defendant would be j seventy-five cents. 1 nder this state of facts, together with j Some others not considered material to this i discussion, the loarnod i ise! for thu de. feudanl claims that the defendant received j the payment of the fee, believing at the time that lie had the legal right to charge and receive it, and that cousequenlty he would not be i riminally liable, even though tot fee dcmaudcil was ill excess of the I amount allowed by law-, that because of defcudarit's good faitli and honest belief in his right to charge the fee, no criminal intent in-tent aXitted in bis mind, and without thi- ' criminal intent be Would not lie guilty of the : olten'c charged. To sustain this view we are cited g (,'. L. section t-lMl; Faulks vs. PeopU' K Mi. h , iW0j Ben vs. State of Ohio, 23U; Cutler vs. Slate :i S'. J. Law U. Some of the authorities seemed to sustain this view, but upon a careful analysis would be found that the role contended for applied largely to cases where tho parly had been honestly acting upon a supposed state of facts that did not really exist. A distinction i should be made when the a''t sought to be ; punished arises from a mistake of fact rather than from u mistake of law. "One who, while careful ami circumspect, is led into a mistake of fact, and doing what would be in no way reprehensible, wen' they w liat lie supposed them to be, commits whut tin. dcr the the real facts is a violation of a criminal crim-inal statute, is guilty of no crime," In such a case a criminal mind and intent is wanting. want-ing. (Bishop's statutory construction, see. tion 183. ) And according to most of the authorities, a mistake of fact is quite different in Its j effects and consequences, both civil and criminal, from ignorance or mistake of law. I Hence the rule that ignorance or mistake in point of fact is in nearly all cases of sir, posed offenses a sullicicut excuse. ( t Biohi p. c. L,j fed., ssc. 301; S Bishop, C, L., 7 sec. 100. i But this rule is held not to apply to a mis. take or ignorance of th" law; for, ill general, every person is presumed to know He law of the country where he lives. "And ,n no ca-could ca-could one enter a court of justice to which he lias been summoned to cither u cil or criminal proceeding, w ith the sole and I naked defense that when he did the thing complained of, lie did not know of the existence exis-tence of the law which he violated, nor that he believed the law dilfc rem from what it really was, nor even if he was misled by the advice of counsel. (1 Bishop. C. 1.., see 890; 7 Pickering, 381. ) Indeed, the stronge st authority eitod by - ..the learned counsel hold that where the law ! which has been infringed upon was settled and plain, this maxim may be applied with vigor. In this ease the statute plainly flies the legal fee: nothing is left to surmise or UUCertatnty. The miners of this mining d trict bad no right to make rules .Contrnrt to the laws of the I'nitc d so,tcs or of this iter-ritory: iter-ritory: and the defendant was bound to know what the law was. To hold that Due, person c alled to ace. unit for a violation of a I pedal statute had the legal right to place his ow n eouslru 'ion upon the meaning of suc h statute, and eh.un Immunity from punishment punish-ment for its violation because of some usage or custom which bad grown up in violation of the statute whleh he believed to he law, would, in effect, nullify and render nugatory many of the criminal statutes of the territory, terri-tory, and render each person who has vlo-latcd vlo-latcd the law the sole judge of his own guilt. I'J Bishop's C. I.., ice, lllf.l; 1. s. v-. Reynolds, !I3 I . S., Uii ; Davis vs. Com., 18 Bush. Ky :as; ;t Sawyer, 470; State vs. Goodnow, 115 Maine, 51; Com. vs. .Mast, 7, Motealf, 47g; Lincoln vs. Shaw, 17 Mass, 410: People vs. Calhoun, lid Wend. I'JO.J There is nothing in this c ase to bring it within any eleeptiou referred to by impel hint's counsel in Cutler vs. State ittl . .1. !". In that case thedefondaul waaafudi. rial officer. 1 nib r all tin- circumstances of this case wcinusl hold tin- C0UVicUn proper; the court very properly con-idc-rcd the mil Igating circumstances shown in the ease In living the amount of punishment. The judgment and sentence of tho Third district court is allirmc il. |