| Show SUPREME COURT OPINION TODAY Tb The court has handed dowl down downan nn an opinIon In which th thi statute In re regard gard rd to In the first and second degree by the last tur tune Is interpreted Time The opinion holds that It was ivas eror error for Cor the lower curt court to dIsmiss a vase cUe ot of burglary In the degree because tM the Information did not not allege nor the tho evidence did not Dot show chow an Intent to 10 commit grand larceny b goo goods ot of te the value ot of 10 O or mora more The caso was that of te the State ot of Uth Utah appellant vs Clyde hews and William Watson which was IPp appealed led from district court court In Utah county Watson demand ad and WIS wan given a Ipanto trIal upon the tho charge ot of burg lary In the first degree but the evl denee dId nol lint show that the defendant brok broke and the place with Intent to grand larceny or felony telony and neither did te the InformatIon allege that hence the Ibe lower curt court did It not allow the cue case to go o the tho Jury but dismissed It after the state had put pu In It its evIdence The supreme curt court now holds bolds that tho lower count erred because the words larceny or other felony as Used In the amended MI act mons moans petIt larceny ett ai as wol well al ate grand larceny or any other felony Time The opInIon stae states that It would I b bt Impossible for tor the state to 10 prove In tent tent to commIt grand In such Cited and hence many crimInals who are arc gity guilty would bo be it If the InterpretatIon of oC the tho statute lS as made by the the lower court were vre correct Tha Th Judgment Is revered but as hu has been tried before a Jury jur ho hal has bun been In jeopardY and cannot be tried again The opinion vas as written by Chief lustic McCarty and In by anti Frick |
