Show OOM FROM tv 38 98 1 I 1 itt T I 1 buann less done by the judda yesterday Alten hoon t 8 0 cloak hicl yesterday alvernoon alter noon a of the ofte territorial supreme bold chief justice jaae te justis Jast lees aud and be t before befogs the W a eda and sad judge I 1 ju ud al 0 I 1 dice th the fl 11 at was that of the U united sta t A J ker shaw ww prosecuted ted 1 r lattery 1 in liv lag ing wi alu his bia gloal I 1 I 1 re inan dell delivered the e too olabe e preme coort ork affirms decision of the CO court below lu in the boit ot of the united states vs the utah ufah northern northera railway hallway the of bf the lower court was at al firmed in toe the case of the united states vs thomas K R cutler cotler colv convicted isted of unlawful f al cohall co cohabitation habl tion toe the majority 0 of court join joined la ft a decision outa aos tali tae a ac action on otibe abe district court ju jo zone zane issei ia from this rallar the q estton qt ion at htwe id one of im laif tance the opinions are given in in iw DECISION Is IK THE COURT or OF OF urah UFAH Juner auoe term erm 1888 the united states of respondent vs thomas B R cutler caller appellant boreman Bore mao justice delivered the opinion oi court the appellant was convicted of tee crime of polygamy upon the aling calling of the we case in the district court the defendant defend Mt moved the court to quash or or sat aside the indictment on the ground that the indictment was found on the evidence ol 01 as an incompetent witness that said alleged incompetents incompetent witness legal wife of the defendant and was compe compelled ed against her own will ami garast iest the will of the defendant to testify before rand jury that found the indictment aby ID ion to U b was overruled in the district coort art and the defendant has bai appealed the case to this court the statute upon which the defend ant bases his ion to the i indict ment meat reads as tol follow lows A bu MIES butac cannot be examined for or a h 0 wife without her ber cincot con cot mot ft 6 wife for or ag s last her without his consent nor can bluer id g the ariage or if abe t alt font n the consent of the other examined as to any communication made by one to the other during the marriage but this exception does not apply to a civil action or proceeding by one against the other nor to a criminal action or proceeding for a crime committed by one against the other laws of utah 1884 2884 p see sec 1156 tais mcgurt has already held that a crime orthis character is a crime committed by t he husband against the wife and that she is a competent witness against him united states vs bassett 13 pac rep p after further consideration of the question ta in the case at bar we have no disposition to depart from the views expressed eased by us in the bassett case tr the he legal wife of the defendant was called as a witness before the grand lory jury and as this was a crime committed against lier her we see no reason whatever for holding holdim that she was in competent had it been any other kind of a case than a crime against her she would under the statute just jost quoted havi have been incompetent as a witness the res respondent pendent objects to the motion t on to quash as not being based upon any ground authorized by bylaw law the fact that an indictment was found solely upon the testimony of an incompetent compe competent ent witness is not under our statutes ground for setting aside or quashing qua ehiD an indictment the statute specifies four grounds for settie setting ag aside an indictment and that set up in the motion is not embraced in any of them the first ground set forth in the statute is the only one that could by auy any possibility be construed as embracing it but we deem that it is settled by the practice in this territory and by decisions under similar statutes that the ground of the motion to quash is not within the statute people vs colby 51 54 cal 37 state vs logan 1 nev indeed we do doi not under understand the counsel for the defendant as contending that it comet comes within the statute but they claim that outside of the statute under the common law practice the indictment should have been quashed we do not however see any ground for such position with the statute before us we find no authority to go outside of it toe first section of the criminal procedure act says thattie Th that atthe the mode of procedure in criminal cases in the courts in this territory shall be as pre scribed ascribed in this act I 1 laws of 1878 p 60 we deem this language exclusive and abd we see no authority tor for allowing any other grounds for quashing qua saing binan an indict vuner 0 tied in the amy the e re 0 omitted as a ground ot of a quash that bat set up in the the defendant t is not a mat inquiry I 1 it t is a not lot there mad it idiot our province to place it lion osk to guash was waa there re p upon iole 01 own therefore we so i enior a r reversal ot of the de casion of lapourt court below the judg pent na aau order er ot of the district court akre alreed al A joncurs osva 01 OPINION 0 jd I 1 tat a man 4 11 iwa eprime t the 11 the court ort ad trial ot a 0 pei pe 0 against the laws 0 ot in 14 case ol of un unite aa oad 12 howard 3 C chief ie justice iu deli delivering the opinion ol 01 the ae ippei abild d but it c guld not be A so 1 ithone very plain words to show it t congress intended to give the tee tea the power of prend bing the lies lee of evidence in trials of offenses ast th the e united states ter for this a would in effect place pikes the loival m I 1 jurisprudence of one oae under the control of another it t is a evident that such could not b the ica of the act of Cob congress gress and abd that vac statute ol of Vir virginia elida was not the law tw which of clements 99 a witness e ought to have been decided tt if ir tie e court could not presume that t rasit Congress intended to give to the a a of prescribing scribing re rules 0 in trials s of offenses a the united states for bial t toe e reason uk it would in effect place the criminal jurisprudence of one buo sovereignty go ty under the control of ago another lier an lah t the court to assunte assume that rm low crded to give to ehg rr we pow pometo eto 11 ah prescribe quell 4 0 trial of united atea 00 cases such bach tei oven even sovereignties sovereign ties but ob as cona coda the 44 of such a plies wah ar 0 by a territorial contress Cons agress ress may provide the united State cd t territorial e coultm a dball h all observe 1 ia t tbt h q naz tr aruil of united cited states 1 C too rules or of pleading practice fad evidene prescribed ty abate or territorial I 1 11 tures for the trial of mate or twe territorial basea lly by such a ar Co 3 Beress gives to such state i i territorial terri tortal davs tle arc fc ano and eff effect ct laws of the united states but bat the delegation by congress to such legislatures of its authority to make such laws will not be presumed to have been intended congress may author izette people of a territory to make lows laws and the state legislature may confer upon the people of a city that authority but while congress ma may y authorize the people of a territory to make laws for themselves and to govern those coming within the t territorial arri t oai al jurisdiction it will not anth IF ze them to in make ake laws for the deop ut of the united states ani and so the legisla ture tare of a state may give to the people of a city power to pass ordinances I 1 lor or thease themselves cief ves but not tor for all the people of the state this point was not considered by the court in the case of the united states vs bassett 13 pacific reporter nor do 1 think that the statute enacted by the territorial legislature specifying the grounds upon which in may be set aside applies to this case the authorities bearing on this question are cited in the dissenting opinion in united states vs jones 18 pacific reporter 1 I am of the opinion that the fact that the ment was found solely upon the test testimony of in an incompetent witness constituted a sufficient ground to quash it I 1 dissent from the judgment of the court ralph pidcock vs union pacific railway company decision of the court below affirmed notice of appeal given by defendant corporation and bonds fixed at united states vs thomas P F harris convicted of polygamy judgment of the lower court affirmed the crescent mining company vs the wasatch mining Com company vany judgment of the lower court affirmed tin ten days additional time granted in which to file a petition for a rehearing A BOGUS CLAIM Attorney Winters then read the following petition which was ordered filed in the su supreme reme court of the terri tox tom of btag utah in chancery lithe matter of the abe claim of carl P carlson against the late corporation the church of jeas christ of lat ter day saints 11 to the honorable judges of the su supreme court of utah territory the peti petition tiou of carl P carlson respectfully fully shows L I 1 that the late corporation the church of jesus christ of latter day saints was incorporated under the laws of the territory ot of utah and by act achot ot congress on the second day of march A D 1887 and was in existence at ilie the time hereinafter mentioned XI IL that it W was the policy licy and ace of bald aid 1 co aih ratio PO to encourage 4 ua IM od of the mormon church to moril loin tet to utah from foreign coun coan crua gild and to facilitate such emigration sent out agents to assist and take charge of persons so emigrating A among ong whom am was one joseph 5 W young deceased ed who acted as such aa agent out tor for a said corp corporation bration at the town of wyoming bomin now omaha nebraska at t the time hereinafter mentioned ill III that said corporation instruct ed its ils said agent to demand the money carried or owned by said emigrants tor for safe transportation across the plains so as to avoid the danger incident to the voyage from the Hiss missouri ourt river to etaf etab IV that in the month of july A D 1865 your petitioner was emigrating as a mormon from sweden to salt lake city utah and had bad in his bis possession about thirteen thousand swe atah dollars equal to about five thousand dollars in money of the united states of america which constituted the whole of his earthly possession and represented many years of hard labor V that at said town of wyoming the said joseph W young in ge the name of said corporation and as its representative and agent demanded of the emigrants there present mong among whom was your petitioner all moneys in their possession that he be might safely convey it across the plains and through the dangers on the way which he depre seated 98 a very great indeed and then men I 1 a ad there represented said corporation as of divine origin and himself as its sper special ial messenger and that as such he would safely convey said money for us to our said destination VI that there your petitioner believing his said statements and rely in ing on his honor integrity a aad ad his bis said promise slid and he believing lieving said corporation to be a divine institution paid and delivered in trust to said corporation through its said agent all ot of his bis said money to wit five thousand dollars to be held in trust and returned to him to as aforesaid VI VII 1 that no portion of said money or interest thereon has baa been returned or paid to your petitioner and that he is entitled to the same wherefore ne your petitioner asks that an order he made allowing him to make proof of his faia claim and that said I 1 claim with io interest terest be ordered paid out oat of any assets of said corporation in the han flandi 0 t the he receiver thereof not otherwise appropriated and your petitioner will ever etc etc B R D WINT WINTERS Erts counsel for PetitA petitioner P L LW williams illiams in behalf of receiver dyer suggested that such a claim was barred by the statute of limitation mr winters said he be wanted permission to prove the allegations made judge hander henderson on wanted to know why the matter had not dot been brought up before and attorney winters said that would be shown at the hearing of the case the petitioner was permitted to enter suit against the receiver tor for his alleged le ed claim on motion of judge po Powers Michael E mcenany of michigan was admitted to the bar D C eichnor eichho made application for aci admission mission t e bar W H dickson Dick aon J hawlins and P J barrett were a appointed pointed 60 an examining committee and after bein being losely closely interrogated terro gated for some time yr mr eichnor was recommended for admission the ie commendation was accepted hou hon elliot sanford toe the newly appointed C hief chief justice of Uta hand hon pointed john ohn W judd the new associate justice took the oath of office and are now duly installed the territorial supreme court adjourned to sept |