| Show hairn vs salt laele CITY olty olt oli opinion nion hustles berean territory of utah third district court in chancery I 1 jacob smith plaintiff vs vig salt lake elt cit city defendant balt bait lare LAKE CITY aug the defendant having brought several actions against the plaintiff plain titi tift before jeter clinton justice of the peace for al eged violations of an ordinance concerning markets and market mas hims tera lera the plaintiff applied to this court for a writ of injunction to restrain the defendants from further prosecuting the plaintiff on the alleged ground aground that the third district court mr justice strickland presiding ilas tins adjudged the sald said ordinance to be null aud sud void all other material facca facts will appear in uhe the opinion of the court george E whitney for the plaintiff snow and hoge and ym wm haydon hydon for the defendant mckean chief justice at thelast the last march term of the third district court mr justice strickland presiding returns were made to td writs of certiorari in several caseb cases in which jeter clinton alderman and ex officio justic justice of the peace bad rendered judgments for alleged violations of ian gan iau an ordinance lic ilc licensing enung and regulating the man mau manufacture and bale baie of spirituous vinous vitious I 1 and fermented liquore 11 and ulso aiso in se beveral several veral verai eiso cases in which tha thal that official had bad rendered judgments for alleged violat violations loris ioris ot of an ordinance conce concerning markets bud abd market masters in uhe the case of charles A loomis vs salt L lake lmke ake she city oue of the cases arasi arising 9 under the first named ordinance judgment was rendered as fol foi follows follo lowe loWb wc NV whereupon hero here after anner argument by respective cou counsel neel the case was wasi submitted t to 0 the court for consideration and decision and after due deliberation thereon it was adjudged by the court that jeter clinton alderman and ex offield justice of the peace had no jurisdiction in the premises and that the ordinance of bait salt lake city entitled an licensing and regulating the manufacture and sale of spirituous vinous and fermented liquors 1 is null and void said ordinance not being in pursuance of authority granted in the charter of said bald city 11 in the two cases of jacob smith et el alus alvs salt lake city ar arising 1 ising under an ordinance concerning markets and mar ket masters judgments were rendered as follows this cause coming on to be heard hoard in on the day of april A D 1872 the plaintiffs appearing Lippearl ug by J neely johnson eq EI E q I their attorney and the defendant by enow know and hoge its sit nit attorney attorneys orneys sand and the said attorneys tor the respective parties patties agreeing bat bao that hat the argument now to be made by counsel in the tue cage caga of charles A lor Lomis vs salt lake city and tute the deci deel bion sion of the court ther thereof eol eor shoud should govern ern and aud be by both parties taken and received as the decision of this case whereupon after argument by respective spec tive counsel the cause was submitted to the court for consideration and decision and after due deliberation thereon it was adjudged by the court that jeter clinton alderman and ex officio justice of the peace had no jurisdiction in in the premises and that the ordinance of sait sll latte lse luecity city entitled an ordinance licensing and regulating the manufacture and sale of spirituous vinous and fermented liquors a null nuli and void said ordinance not being in pursuance of 0 authority granted in the charter of said city olty 11 16 will be been that in neither or of chest judgments Is the market ordinance adjudged to be null aud vold void but the couii counsel Bel bei for the plaintiff claims that the reference in the last cited judgment to the liquor ordinance is a eleric cleric clerical Nl error and mat that the uhe markut market ordinance wa intended without pausing to inquire whether it if this be so the record enit edit bt be virtually or really corrected in thim thir manner anner oi let us see if the position is a probably correct in the positions on which the writs write of certiorari were allowed in in the two oases eases of jacob smith et at al vs salt lake city exceptions were taken to the ju dacial authority of jeter clinton Ci inton alderman delujan and ex justice of the peace but no point Is ia made as to the validity of the said market ordinance and the returns to those writs do not ellow ebow that auy any question was raised as to the tho validity of that ordinance on the trials before the said canton tanton this court cannot assume that mr strickland intended to td pass upon the validity of an Ordin ordinance aneo anee which was wag not questioned in the papers before him and which was really not passed upon as appears from the entry 0 judgment a lu in the caseb cases in which tile tiie plaintiff wab was a party mr justice strickland decided gains lf the judicial authority of jeter jeter clinton alderman and ex officio justice of the peace but ex pressed no opinion in favor of nor bor ainest against the market ordinance the ha application for a writ of 0 injunction is based upon the suppose supposed ground that tue the market ordinance had been be null and voil vold voll this position being erroneous it is ia unnecessary to ei enquire aquire whether were it correct this thib would be a gase pase in which an injunction could issue nor would it be proper in this case to express any opinion as to fo the validity or invalidity of the said sald marked market ordinance the judgments cited above decide against the judicial authority of jeter clinton ali aih alderman aiderman jerman aerman and ev cx officio justlee justice of the peace I 1 but the actions since brought the plaintiff have nave beed been brought before jeter clinton justice of the peace pence an official whose authority waft wab not thea theia under consider consideration considerate ati oti if the plain plaintiff tiT Is U wrong doubt there is A remedy for that wrong but upon the pr present ebent state ot of facts the writ of injunction i oa to ia not that remedy i the motion Is ia denied f |
