Show JUSTICES JUSTI ClES jurisdiction it extends to six months imprisonment and fine CHIEF JUSTICE ZINE ZANE DELIVERS bE LIVERS A SENSIBLE OPINION ON THE SUBJECT rowans AND BAD LAW TO THE YOUR FOUR WINDS today to day a decision was rendered by the territorial supreme court which raised quite a breeze lu in certain quarters arters its chi caf ef importance Is however to the justices of the peace throughout the territory it wiil wid be remembered that nearly two years ago when an attempt was made on the part of the local officers to enforce the laws against immorality those who were beins being prosecuted rushed to the federal courts for protection tec tion the notorious case was mus brought before the dorrit territorial orial wa supreme court where associate justice 3 8 boreman and 0 W powers stopped all proceedings cee ce by holding that the law authorizing authorising autho rising justices of the peace to hear cases where ape the punishment was six months am i imprisonment and fine was vold void chief justice zane dissented aissen ted from tuat mat ruling ru lins the case was again presented when there was a change in the personnel of the court under the and with the result stated in the following DECISION in the supreme court 0 of f utah territory june term 1887 7 the people of the territory of utah appellant vs TS wi william douglass respondent opinion by zane C J this prosecution was instituted belore lore a justice of the peace of ogden precinct in weber county tae complainant nant charged the defendant with the crime of battery ta defendant demurred to the complaint for the reason that a justice of the peace had bad no jurisdiction to try a person charged with the OFFENSE OF BATTERY the demurrer was overruled thede the de fondant was tried touted guilty and sentenced to pay a tine of twenty five dak dollars lars in default ot auch payment to be imprisoned at the rate rale of one day clay to each doller dollar of the fine from that judgment the defendant appealed pealed av to the first district court wherein the demurrer to the complaint was stis bained and judgment rendered accordingly this appeal appal is from the lat ter judg judgment went the question presented for our consideration and decision is have justices of the peace in tois territory authority to to try a person accused of the C crime of battery that orense offense may be punished in this territory by a fine in any sum not exceeding abr three e hundred dollars or by rison ment lor any time not exceeding dl six months or by both the statutes of the territory declare that justices of the peace shall have jurisdiction j uris of petit larceny of assault and battery not charged to 10 nave been committed upon a public officer in the discharge of his duty of breaches of the peace committing a wilful injury to property and ALL A LL misdemeanors punishable by a floe fine less than three hundred dollars or imprisonment in the county jail or city prison not exceeding six months or by both such fine and imprisonment jurisdiction is oven civen in ia express terms to justices of the pease peace to try battery cases but the defendant denies the power of the territorial legislature to confer such jurisdiction j urise action on justices courts the authority to pass such a law if possessed by the territorial legislature is given by the pro visions of the organic act and in the acts amendatory thereof section four of the organic act provides that the jurisdiction of the several courts herec provided for both appellate and original and that of tille this probate courts arid and justices 0 the peace shall be limited by law provided that justices of the peace shall not have jurisdiction of any matter in controversy where the title or boundaries of land may be in dispute or when the debt or sum claimed shall exceed one hundred dollars compiled laws of utah 18 1876 6 p 81 section three of a subsequent act of congress extends the civil jurisdiction of these courts to all cases in which the debt or sum claimed shall be less than three hundred dollars and gives the right of appeal from all judgments of these courts ibid p 54 the foregoing provisions limit the jurisdiction of justices of the peace to cases in which the debt or sum claimed is less than three hundred dollars and exclude cases involving the title or boundary of land these limitations dindot DO NOT APPLY to criminal cases section statutes of the united states 1878 declares that the jurisdiction of justices of the peace as well as the jurisdiction ot oreace other courts referred to shall be as limited by law this is equivalent to a declaration cl that justices atthe peace shall have jurisdiction to try all causes of action that might wise arise within the limits fixed by law it extends their authority to such limits by the above provision congress imposed the duty upon anthe the lawmaking law making power of passing laws limiting the jurisdiction of justices us tl ces ot the peace and inasmuch as congress 0 gress has not enacted such laws the anten intention tion must have been to im pose ose the duty on the lawmaking law making body fr tor which it made provision in section six of the organic act in the following terms that the legislative power ot of said territory shall extend to ALL RIGHTFUL SUBJECTS of legislation consistent with the constitution of the united states and the provisions of this act but no law shall be passed interfering with the primary disposal of the soil no tax shall be imposed upon the property of the united states nor shall the lands or other property of non residents be taxed higher than elands th oi 01 other property of residents all the laws passed by the le legislative I 1 dative assembly and governor shall oe be submitted to the congress of the united states and it ds disapproved approved shall be null and of no effect the territorial act in question has not been disapproved by congress fhe language of the section quoted is the legislative power of said Tero territory tory shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation legislation leei consistent with the constitution of the united states and tile the provisions of this act ofle ane territorial enactment in question appears TO BE consistent with the constitution und and the laws of congress the jurisdiction of jasti asli ces courts cotry to try cases is is a rightful subject of legislation because it is al ways coLe ferrad by legislation leei at common law a justice lajustice of toe peace had no power to try any offenses off eases whatever he was no more uan an examining exam ming magistrate gi strate to inquire into offenses with a view to holding parties tor for trial on OB indictment elsewhere it if sufficient cause was shown to commit the ac aused but the power of trying and convicting petty offenders is entirely statutory and must oe be conducted as the jaw pres presences crines 11 sarah ways caserl mien mich to the same effect is the ease of martin vs fales 36 american decisions the jurisdiction of justices of the peace has been extended extend latterly both beth in england and hirthe united states in te various states of this country toe jurisdiction both civil and crim inal differs and has been changed as to its extent in some of the states has the capacities of men and advancing enterprise has WIDENED THE FIELD of their duties and accordingly the respective states have extended the labors of their magistrates in obedience to the conceived demands of the public good there is no uniform limit to their jurisdiction common to the states in a number of the states and territories the jurisdiction of justices of the place at the present time extends to six months imprison imprisonment and a line fine ranging from one b hundred un to five hundred dollars in C california ali the limitation is not to exceed six months imprisonment or er a jine fine of five hundred dundr ed dollars or both in nevada justices may imprison for six months or impose a fine of live five hundred dollars or both in other states and in the territories the jurisdiction of justices courts varies in construing the provisions of the arganie act under consideration coc THE SUPREME COURT of the united states said when congress has proceeded to organize a government ment for any of the territories it has merely instituted a general system of courts and has committed to the territorial assembly full power subject to specified or implied conditions of supplying all details of legislation necessary to put the system inLo operation even to the defining of the jurisdiction of the several courts As a general thing subject to the general scheme of local government chalked out by the organic act and such special provisions as are contained therein local legislatures have nuen neen entrusted with the enactment of the entire system of municipal law subject also howver however to te the right ol 01 congress to revise alter and at its ais discretion the powers thus exercised by the territorial legislatures are nearly dearly as extensive as those exercised by any state legislature hornbuckle vs toombs 18 wall adais in the case of westray vs united states id referring to the same legislative power the same court said sald the ehe power given to the legislature is extremely broad to the same effect are the cases of cha vs potts 2 montana bray vs united states 1 new mexico 1 territory vs valdez id and clinton et al vs englebrecht 13 wallace counsel for the defendant relies on ferris vs higley 20 wallace in that case an act of the legislature of the territory of utah conferring general jurisdiction ON PROBATE COURTS was held to be inconsistent with the organic of 01 was held not to be the intention of congress by the organic act to convert the probate court into a court in which all causes whether civil or criminal whether of common law or chancery CO cognizance ni zance whether involving life liberty or property should be tried and determined the court held however that the power to define the jurisdiction juris ris of the territorial courts might be in included eluded within the meaning of the phrase rightful subject of legislation and that the territorial act in question in that case was not incon sistena with the constitution of the united states stales but that thai it was inc inconsistent on with the organic act itself in considering that act the court pointed on territorial act was inconsistent among them were the following the act declared that the supreme and districts courts respectively should possess chancery as well as common law jurisdiction while the probate couett were left with such powers as THEIR TITLE INDICATES that their name described their functions that they abc y were such as had been united under the name and had been exercised by those courts in england and in this tais country they were such as it had been necessary for them to use in the settlement of the estates of deceased persons the estates of infants and persons of unsound mind and in adjudications as to dower and the appointment of guardians and con servitors serva tors the organic act that the judges of district courts should be a appointed p apted by the Pre Jent by and with 10 the 1 advice and consent of the senate while the election or appointment of probate judges was left to be provided for by the territorial legislature the court said looking then to the purpose of the organic act ace to establish a general genera system of government and its obvious purpose to say what courts shall exist in the territory and how the judicial power shall be distributed among them and especially to the fact that all ordinary and necessary jurisdiction is ig provided for in the supreme and district courts and that of justices of the peace and that the jurisdiction of the probate court is left to rest in the general nature and character ot such courts as they are recognized in our system of jurisprudence is it not A FAIR INFERENCE that it was not intended that that court should be made one of general jurisdiction and finally the court said the fact that the judges ot these latter courts are appointed b bi the federal power and paid by that power that other officers rB of these courts are appointed una and paid in like manner strongly repels the idea that congress in conferring on these court all power courts of general jui Is i diction both civil and criminal intended to leave to the territorial legislature the power to practically aliv evade or obstruct the of those thos powers by conferring precisely the same jurisdiction of courts cr created e a ted and appointed by the territory it is clear that the case cited is not analogous to the one in hand band no such inconsistencies exist between the act in band aal the organic law jaw as was pointed out between the act held to be invalid in the case cited and the organic law it is conceded that justices of the peace in this country have USUALLY HAI HAD jurisdiction of assaults and batteries aud other misdemeanors misdemeanor oi S of like like gra debut con counsel D urge that the maximum puni punishments sh for these offenses are fixed axed so high in this territory that justices courts ought not to be entrusted with their infliction the answer to this is that before thi the enactment in question justices of the peace had jurisdiction of the same class of offenses la in states and aad territories in which the punishment inflicted was as great as in this territory and the history of such jurisdiction shows that it has no common and abiding limits the mention of the office fice of justice odthe of the peace in Organic the Z act t indi indicated ca ed jurisdiction of the of tense bense of battery and other like ike misdemeanors in many of the states however the term did not indicate the power to inflict punishment to the same extent as authorized by the act under consideration while in others it indicated power to impose EVEN GREATER punishment to hold that the prosecution of assaults batteries breaches of the peace and other misdemeanors of like character must be commenced by indictment in the district courts would cause great eat inconvenience hardship and ar delay in many cases because that court holds but four terms during the year and because the offenses are often committed at a distance irom from the place of sitti sitting in such cases the defendant and zi all the witnesses would be compelled to travel a greater distance and at considerable sid erable expense the hardship delay inconvenience and expense would be greatly lessened by a aval near the place where the offense was committed the PUBLIC GOOD DEMANDS that such petty offenses shall be tried before a magistrate I 1 in the neighborhood net g hn of the place of their committal if at that place such as an officer with the requisite qualifications can be found the public welfare demands as little delay and hardship in the prosecution of persons charged with cri crime crimes meas as is consistent with a faithful enforcement of the law we are disposed to hold that the territorial act in question conferring jurisdiction on justices of the peace to try persons accused of the crime of battery and kotlier misdemeanors of the same grade is valid we have been referred to the case of vs 10 Re reporter that ease case was decided under the impression that no precedent existed for conferring such extended jurisdiction on justices of the peace after hearing lurther argument upon the question involved and upon more mature deliberation we are of the opinion that that case so far as it conflicts with this should be overruled the judgment of the court below sustaining the demurrer to the complaint is reversed and tile the case is ia remanded banded for further proceedings in that court henderson A J concurs boreman A J diss judge henderson delivered a separate opinion which is as follows sitting in the district court I 1 sustained the demorier de murier in this case on the authority of vs 10 pac rep |