OCR Text |
Show H UTAH COURTS All RIGHT. B The Record would foign lift H its little voice In protest against H tho unreasonable distrust of our H judiciary that many of tho big H dailies and nearl all of tho H magazines of tho land arc now- H ii-days ongondcring into tho H breasts of their readers; And H wo noto that some of the country H papers, ovon in Utah, aro trying H to apo and follow tho big dailies H nd tho magazines in this mat- H Wo somehow foci that, not- H withstanding tho groat amount M of "slutf" that is being written H About tho law's delay, corruption H in courts, recall of judges, etc., H otc, tho avorago man of this H ' generation is just about as honest H nnd upright as was the average H man of any past generation. As H a necessary corollary it follows B that tho men of higher .attain- H monts and learning than the H average of our generation are H just as good as wero tho men of H higher attaiments and learning bfe m$ than tho avorago of former gon- HW m orations. This being so, it is our H Mj opinion that when in any ono H ' iff community or voting district ono H If; . man is selected for elevation to H jh r tliphigh ofllcoof judgo and takes Hk his oath of office ho is going to . --pogj)oct tlmtoath and "deal out H justico as ho sees it and without H mf$F unnecessary delay or unneces- H sary disadvantage or advan- B ' tago to tho poor litigant. Do tho reauors of this stud! m that ia boing written and printed H uow-a-days over stop to romem- B ,1)0 r that when a man charged M " with crimo is tuicd and escapes B m with a"; verdict of not. guilty, ' that, right or wrong, that vor- R diet is tho result of tho'dolibcra- H tiona of a jury which is always H composed of laymen. or tho ' !com- H mon people," With which tho m judge has little or nothing to do? M If tho Juror? do a great wrpng H by turning a guilty man loose, ) all through getting their syinpa- B thies wrought up by the (lory B oratory of tho. do fondants hired M lawyer is that tho result of H corruption in court? If a poor H litigant comes before such a jury H with an unwoithy cause and M Jails, therefore, to got damages, B is that the resultt-'oF corruption in M court? Aro the judges to bo re- M called? We think nut. Wo aro 1 not holiovors in tho recall of M judgos by tho Uryan method, nor M by tho Roosevelt method, nor by H tho Virif inian method. Wo havo H too much confulonco in humanity B for tluit m As to tho dolays in court, wo H note a conuroto instanco given m with nil apparent sincerity in M last week's isaue of u Utah H weakly, tho Ringlmm Pixss- m Bulletin. It refers to a easo afllrmod on March 20th, 1012, by B tho Supremo Court of our state 1 whoroin a widow of Lohi was H awarded 7, 500 damages for tho H.r death of her husband who was killed by Uio K. G. W. Kailiwid on July 5, .1905. This did noti H scorn to us along time to koepj H the widow out of her money and H" an unreasonable delay in tho , H uQttloincnt of a law suit. Tno A, mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmHmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmwmm - .. . - Bulletin aoemed to give as cause of tho delay that the defendant was n "powerful corporation" and that the judges "ride on passes." It botherdd us some. Hie editor of this paper has a brother vho is an attache of the Supreme Court and so wrote him for the facts. Wo learn that although the accident happened on July 3, 1005, complaint was not filed until June 1G, 1908. Since that time there have been two trials of tho case before it reached the Supremo Court. Tho first verdict was for $15,000, which tho judge, Hon. II. E. Booth (Bishop Booth) of Provo, who, by the way, is well known because of ins, amon others, peculiarity of never accepting ac-cepting or using a pass set aside as being oxhorbitont and the result of prejudice and passion. There was a serious question in tho case as to whether the deceased de-ceased wasnot wholly responsible responsi-ble for his own death. He was last seen alivo "in a jocular humor drinking some" at 11:45 p. in. on tho night of the accident. ac-cident. At about midnight a train passed through tho town. No ono saw tho accidjnt or know how it happened. His remains woro found very badly cut up next morning. Tlie next verdict was for $7,500 and costs and interest, in-terest, ro turned June 3, 1010. Tho law allows six months in which to appeal. Tins is no fault of tho judges nor tho courts, but of tho legislature, which, again, is composed of tho "common "com-mon people." Tho case did not reach tho Supremo Court until July 14, 1911 and was not argued and submitted until October 25th last. Tho dolay in tho Supreme Court was from October till March. Our growing common, wealth gives that court and tho members thereof much work with Its' oyer increasing "litiga tion. But blame all tho delay aftor six months from June, 1910, to tho railroad company. It is paying dearly for it jn interest in-terest on tho judgment Jfrom tho beginning and costs, and the widow and children loso noth ing. It does appear to tho .Record that thoro is no n.ecd for tho Utah. papers to borate our Utah courts; and it appears further that tyo, editors of thom'roUght to 'learn something of whatHheyl aro talking about befdre they begin be-gin to write. Our Utah courts are all right. |