OCR Text |
Show HAT a Meeting of. thq ineml)t rs of tlx Utah bar, coiirquwl at he prlrato office ol Gen ,'S, OifiStiinlbatiKhj On (he evening ol thfi Ctli fnit(;WU;t Jirbdhcd.T3sq.,.beiE called tt tho ehalr.ahd A .Miner, Ksj.( elected secretary, the following prcambk ahd' resolution J werd adopted, Eoiucm and nppropriato Jperche ero tnado. fij ?Tcrnl of ILe mtmbfrs a the .resolutions wereltjtrodijecfl ' J. ' . Whcrca, or more tH.-jii sixyenrrtlie T'crrJtory of Vtah haH bcjcifv )brong!i the neglect, or absenca. ol federal jarigc?, (K jirirtd. of, tic, ucncills arrsing froinu Jhe iioldins of ft. regular term of thceuprcnto couft let the Territory and, , . 'VVhcrea the present Jneuniltnits'thcji honors Qhftf JnMica JJiWy, ijiid A50-cialq A50-cialq Justice Croihy, .faro not oniy In tomi)lianes wltli the provisions of " law, ie-cently ie-cently hold ho, regular, term of .the Ut prcmo cQurlo provided tot; tint uttlia ontlay tif cju'ch times and !-borf haTocaro.-j haTocaro.-j folly "ptepn'rrf.tbeiropinlcmsofld dccisfotji, and hare, ftfren thera uir record, an Msig i nintk s to the- bar- Tor fitf uM practice ; Tiererofef-bo it resolved, that I llutnlcs pf - Iftt Vtud har hero aemlfctf, at Mrcll as bn iMilialf of their absent brcth-ren, brcth-ren, arvliijrcby tendered to their fonorj Chief, Justice Ivi'!ieyt and A$ockl6 Ju (re,Crolytfor tfiolaboraml zealto.rontil-ft zealto.rontil-ft i tlieit'Tcccnt jmlietilaeiions, asc-lfc or the lntcre.it slniwn' them w their endeavors to ejtablUU n 'uniforpt arid con-jiitcnt con-jiitcnt prnctlec In our conrt), and forthefr general dignliied and impartial bearing; and conduct on the bench. llesolTijd, that tjio thank of the. nicro bcrspf (lip bur are. dne. uuit. are licreby rtspcctfully Icodotcd (o Col. Siml)liigh, Snr,rcyor Ociierat of TJtah, as u.juiWic oinccr.ftndge"nlImnn, for tho runny iV rprs extended to us and oilier, ou ijila as 'well as on jnant former occasions, ever filling to gtaht tfi$ u?o;qf lti prtyiite of flee, for the; transaction or jMsincss. connected con-nected with untfonal dni territorial inter!-cstf," inter!-cstf," odd "jtartfcuisirly tot Jits courtesies, tp thabari ' , . ' Bq H.fortfi'cr resolrcdr that the JDuertt fy'itf and IpcsTJil.SKER ho jreiptcstcdjo pufiliijlitheiioreidtulions. , . .Sigitfed, ' t Vj. II. HnoonEJSfe, lf -j'.tv'' ' "' fffatcButn; .; Acpmcs JIi'jfFii, SKKtfarfr i. ' SUPREME IJOIqS; MdsoAT. Ftkf. lfiCl." ' Three opinions were dclitercd to-day, the first was fiv the caic of Suorts u. Kllnmqoii. Decision of the court de-iirered de-iirered by hia honor Jutlgo Crosby. Jndg-mehKof Jndg-mehKof the court below .affirmed. , OlHtf. Justlc? Kinney rend the opinion t of the court In tho case of Joseph Stone tir.-JjTonard, tir.-JjTonard, Savage..,;. s-.f-i-.r ' . ThliVas lipase Jbropglit. mwtt" appeal from the 2nd ,difrir( 'iourt. - Tlio JWlg-mcut, JWlg-mcut, of tlife Carson.cdiirt wusajTmni'd. Thecaso.bf'i'TIieodort Tlioriw vs, the pc0nl6.'itljtah, on appeal' fnirii the coiirt of tio3ctt!dItritt, which wf argued on Salnrday, their "received the decision of (he'ednrt. Tiie' judgment was reversed, .and tho plaimifr rcimrcl to tntcr into ibiida In, tjfe penal wimVtit JOOO'toc Ills appiniraficc nt the riext regpiatrm of the ?rd jndioVf distriet court, and in case ; tiie rcqnirpil 'bail could not be found, ;i1ioipora to be pl.ictdm the Jiatidi of 4lie..'sber!u"Df Q. H. I.. Comity to await the'cctlpnpf sard court. j i TJiociso ot J)avi((3fcKinzifr vs. thAI t6p!e pt tho .tJulle.Statea. wfij-caUisd ! "P. Jflhn C-Mnni "w(.jKstv ippeafol for: tiictiluititiinn,Mra.vainl Wm, lll.Irod-J TicadEvi., rpr,tho..lJiitcd"Slotc;. -Sir. Janits;uruert-tbat the wort wlilelr- tried and .iivic.ted'lwelie'fitant lield n'c-coTdir-s Jo law; thai "Ufcj"ttn1lctmetwas icvcr.prcie'nlijtl iii opeii 'cdatu's reipiircd by Uwf. th'mfore that .t'rihiinaKwsi no eourjat all Mr; llriidliead theii jiris icntedthc Mvcrnmeiitiide'-of Hie tpira-tipti; tpira-tipti; to whielijSl James teiltcdud the fcase wji'.Suliinh(fdt''V "- -'-' " THe..c'putt' then 'adjournad till' to-aior-xpw at ll.'fl.nv .' , Tu paw, Feb, 5, .Mr: De Wolf ayc tibtite that ,lie wdnld lite A lilll of txecption, In. the case of Johh Ittcycv pt aVVs! Knott. , Mr. JJroilliead gave notice tliat be Iwritildile i bill of eicYptiqni hi tbe case ! of Thorpe & Uid'lcoiIe of TJtnh. In regard to the rjucstton of 'costs, in i appeal cases, th? court rnled that the 1 plaintiff in error in tliat i-ourt would recover re-cover lils costs, niid also Hie costi of the Ssuit Jn tho-court below, as it was by error that ho brought jibi cac to the sopreme court. Further, that tho clerk has right to-demnd his fee? of the nppcllatit, as- the ease progrcsMsj. . The court, then appointed tho times aud places' for holding: the district courts for United States business, to wU First district, dis-trict, In Provo, oathe 4th Mondar lii .Alareh; of ench year Vluratlon or term, Ufthiys ffeeoiul dltrict, in CawOu dtyj on the andMonday in Angiiu or cauji year Urm;-.tworweck. Third district, in U.b. U jUity, on tho 2nd Monday in Apricot eaclycur; term, 2t data Tho court timde the Wllowlng "appointments "appoint-ments or V. CouiniLwioner for the thre' Judicial Mhtrkt, sky 1st district, faae UullocV, of Utah county Charles U:Sl,ebbiu; of Cedar county; Timothy H.-toote, pf Juab county; Frederick C. Uobiuson, of San Fete c'puhty; John A. Hay, bf Millard comity, uiid Wni. Crosby, of WashiiiKton county. 2nd district, John C. James, pf Ylr-glnia Ylr-glnia city, Carson eppnty. 3rd district, Wrii, Beli, llosca Stout, dDlTid O. Cahler. of G. S. L, comity! um.' A. Carter, of Green ltlvcr county Sjumel W. Richards, or Davis' county Anrpn F Farr, of AVeber county; Jona' than O.AV right, of Box Ktder enmity i tU V. iini6n of Caclio couuty, and tVaii M. Greene,, of Topele county. Messrs. James and Stout bcinu; present, went forward aud took the oath of oliicc, Tho court then took a recess till 3 p.ro. The casjf pr McKc:f2ia vs. the United States, bciug; the only One now Wore- the wurtj was called up, and thciJeeLiidn dl the court below reversed. - ' The court directed the clerk to issu ait order for MeKtuzic's retcaie. :' ' ar-th.fU?uriied till Monday th 22nd.day of April, proxtmo. ? I Sabsetiupt tqiho ndjdurnraent of eour Mciwri. Phelprand Hickman filed bdadi pri behftlf'orjMr1. Thorpe,; whereupon ;Iii was'ieleaiedi . ',. ' , - 4 7 f f VSUPREMKCOURT.. I Af D. KKNf6.v,) inn Buprctrip Conrt rr, I JsnVTerm; ' A. V Scsxn Ktsroff. J 1801, Utah TerrVy, srrfcit. rnpt tttii titsntKt cowpr rojt cUit ; Optnhu e ltn. ,.r 'X. Jtfuptjf, 6itty . , - liiltcfi - -, SnsauKcnyOfj filed Jier pptitipu J th distriet 'cotittYor riivorpe, cti?rlng adol tery.and praying that- the bonds, of fnitr nlonv between hrr mui tier nM lnnt.dif, bo totally tlfssolvcd; also for'thecarfr nni custody, of the children, and forn sep w . ate cstutc 'out dr. thq' property Pf the dt ; fendant. , v Vi , -''JvWrt atiswcrcd, denying fte fu.pt charged, and .alleged that the Vetitionc wns herself guilty pt thfe frimeJuhnitci ta tiinu : , -' , tA bill, of tSceptioris was, taken': 6'n it trial by. -wlileh, it SJeeni-i; aumngPtlic , Pbjceuons.made io tha.Jnridiction of iv court, ahd overruled, wdf one, that' tin . district cpurf had no jurlsdictipn of tin action dorcr. - -.-'. ' The conrt decreed a dlrort'eYrdnpbci , and board, the care "and guardianship o ( the cfiifttrrn, awl, (tTO .thottaml.:nud' fiv( . hhudrcd ddllafs' a$ alimony to tlid' 'pi'atti j'tiir. , t.. ; "" ' . The defendant' nr-ps"' and contend! t under tlie. statnlM of ittqli, tlie dlslricl caurt has, no jurisdiction whatcfer Orel c4e of; divofte 'Other fpiesllons art raised; lint tliis U the' pnly one necessary to cbnslder. Sec. 1, pagq Jrja Hc-i$ed Jritws, Is relied nporr jn support of this posllipti,. It vr6vide "That tho LWt of Frpbato hr (lie ep'unty where the plalh: tlir resides, hn! hjivp jurilietl6n la all Cases or,;dijrort-e and dlirnony; andofgiiar' dianship and dfatribatfonr of property tou' nectcd therewith:.? . . ' , ; , i 11 . thls,statute,is not fti cpnOlc-t-Iwiili thp Organic Acti5 It is suprcuiei nuil oitt bo observed. ' .Itjs not-tn eon((ictiule9 ii eiuicr.ocrogaics Horn ttiq . powers ex eluslvcly conferred opon'thedistrict courti by, the act, orjeonfersi 'unwn'rrailtcd pow. crs upon the probate conrft 4'art'or w(r?. 9; reads as follows: ,"Ajid bu'it fnrther enacted that;tlid. judicial power.'of.'sald Territory shall be'; ycs'tcdnit .'- supreme court;, district cdrt?,-probate courts; and iu justices of. Urn peaee? .',;. After, providing tor. a s6p'remocdnrf,.1t states' that the Tcj'rilory.shall bo divided Into three judicial districts, ami a distriet court shall bo hcld'tia each of safd dis-tricts dis-tricts by' one, dr the Justices "of the su prenie cmirtj at tndi titno and place 'ag may beprcscritjctl by law, and the judges shall,-, after their appointments; respec tiyejy reside in tlie district? wlilelf shall bd assigned them. The Jurisdiction' of the several courts herein provided for, both appellate and original, and that of the probate' coqri-, and. Jutticttf of tho peace, shall be as Ibni.teit-by law. Then follows an Inhibition tiporejusticta. of the peatpi aud tlie scetion fortlier prpvides that the supremo and district courts respectively, re-spectively, shall possess clmnqcry as well as common Ufr jurisdiction. -The. judicial power of the Territory Is vested in four scparutcand distliii't courts The legisiatfon as to otic of these courts, that of justices or the peace, is resttict-'td, resttict-'td, air cpnfiiieil aitfifn certain well ilc-lrned ilc-lrned Udunds; bnl with tfihr exceptiort, the jurisdiction of the several cpurtsshall be as liiiitted by'Ww, except that tbe.feg istaturp" .cannot-.curtail the ehaufcetyiiml edmnion luV jurisdiction df the supreme, antl ilistrlctconrrs jfp. aaW'pr'tlic'T.cr-ritpry aaW'pr'tlic'T.cr-ritpry can deprlvu ihilc cpnr tV' of the lipwcir to- tjcercise tltU Jurisdiction, be-c'tuip.ltlsi be-c'tuip.ltlsi cpuferred bya hlghcr author!-tyv author!-tyv Tb'p pdrtidi) of the scetioh under consideration' contains tw'o radicarpfo-vpipuR.-'twp Ininprablp legl$Utivc: bar? riers; lirst agaiiit onierritig' jurisdiction upon jusu'ew or tlie.poacc;iit certain eascs Ticcbnd, agiinit encroacblug uppn thrjeouv-moulaw-andphancery jurfsdletipii or the supreme and district courts. Is the statute conferring exclusive juris- diction upon probate courts, in actions ol divorce, an .interference with this jnridic-i jnridic-i tiou or the district eourts? Toarilveut.u f projicr wintiou of this iucstiQ, we mast impiir what is mrant by hanecry, atu i couiinon law jiiriwlset'Oti, Chaui-ery ju !. risdictipu may be deliuel to lc ii judicial itower to hear and determine all cases i wherein the law, for its universality caii s notff,ird reller. )Jrly in the history ol' jurisprudence, i tlie ndminiiilratton or justice in the ordi' 1 nary Courts was found to be mcompletc, : and hence arose the necessity of svparutt courts of iijuity, wbkh were ursanizcil aliput tho relgit of JvingEiIwiiril 111., foi the purpose vf correetliig that, wiiereii; the Ijw wus itcfrctivc-, and matter ol fraud were among tha objects to wlueli the jurisdiction of cliaucc'ry was originalli i coufiued. : Soon after these courts were established r InKnghind. fierce struggle arose bclweer tho luw niul foully courts, in nlatlon. tc i the jurrsdictioii and jioWers pf each; bui i i.s we trace thd history pr English juris prndcuee, we Ttnd tfip prejudice which ul first existed on tho part or tho'canmps i law courts, yielding to the iicecsiity nnl! , utility of a distinctive equity juHspruiieticP r Arnold vs. Uriuics, 2nd Greene, IT; Follow this court from the reign ol Kdwurd 111:, at first feeble, and afford , lug reller in only a very few costs, uuti t it branches out with enlarged powers, and builds up a stately jurisprudence of iti own, both in England and America, ntui with its extended Jurisdictiun, we veiitUrt h the assertion that as an equity court pure ; ly, without the old of statute, ithrs uevei ! entertained t case-of divoix-o so as to rfn j tier n final decree between the parties. lite application fordivorco from bci ! aad boanl, is nut necessarily an eqhitj I Jiroerd!ng. It itjny be cither at law ehniicery us tli.e legislalnre may proenbe , In Knghind until very recently it Was coo , fined exclusively to tlm ecclesiastical oi I !ijlrftnal .courts, awl in tlie United State: the (million is tiled tithvr in the ehancerj I or aw cv'ur(s according to life provision! ;fof the statQtcs of tlie dilfcrcnt. sutes f The celcbrattd case of Unreh vs. llurcb recently tried lu Illiiioij), uppears to ban si been at law, and the entire cat e tried bj a jury. In other state, the chancellui hears liud tr'es the Issue,' in soiup iu(an ies upon rilwii evidence aloiic, nnd it 1 1 othert i. nkWW. then thftt'ttiejurlsdicttdb indlvtjree' ease Uoes not twcesiarily beleg-'ttf ;papccrj and that ekbse pf hp Orgah'e AjttwhiCi confers np4d tio district WutU' ihlocer; joriidictioA' ft tot violated by tho' itatnt , tjMrtah gftrng another cqart the right t try all cAses-of tliVPrceV i :pi)t tle,,t ' tlon orlses, Is pot the wmWu )ftf ' jurif diction jjf the- ppurt'tramifel upon- Caai r mon 4aw jnrfmllction, we. nndemtaiid mean tlie pp?vcr of the fourttiifi hear at? t '"determine cases ripeonlfeg-ta ihShdes tho common law. Btntutis arc frisquta s ly ifivpkcd in aid oT the eoinmoa Jw bu . commpn Jaw .cpnr,Ur hs :gich.r tjot di JintTilnr'.t Hnnn lllKT- IlilV I becouic itii'Prpo'rated Into, and form pai I Pt tho, conmioii (iw,.wliieiti3lhecas.wU i some ofthe did Ktijrlhii staVui,e, ltin : Mn of the pdwerji of common law eourts. mdedbysiatutptogrant'divercesfreiritx! J- nnd'bpnrd, Oasc-t or this kind do ftpt.bi r long, tp, thcitr' JpriidictionwlifiV sitlin; ltrlcily as puinipn.law'cottrtt. Cjiposci .tO.thbVvicw wd'flro referred.to the .. 3 Wglit'man vs-'Wightman, i Joha Ch, I! t 8t3., - , ' ; Tliat Wft4.n case where the planUif raal j ncd thodefehdant under &6i of insanitj tind never lived with lier fin-ibatid, an ', luid cpiitlnncd "tinder 'abiraiioa'of taint j wilft ocaiilotial lucid futcrrjilii''. f ', 'The question prose befdV ta. cli,ince lor wliether .(lioc6urt,cpiitdke.'jnr5a(li( . t)dn,-us there war 'no .-statute lif tlieiitat pr'Jietv Vork for divorce riwatolwar t ewiickeepi bli ens e1 of ndnifiry, dnd th i ie-fordlvorce tmt arise after mufr> ' The learned cliaBcellPrdeclaTOl the cod , tntct hull atul twd'oiMroatliegroniii that the plafntiir had Rpt- the cajiahiiil, to contract, no more (Itan.if flie luid teei an ldiot(, But the. 'court .ejtprejslys say that tile jiowcf resides aoniewh.ere to, He claro'- the coiitract,vqld, and co'tieiHls t!m It ttust rci4de in thatcPurt.as'lt. h-ls ai pxelnslvojurlsdictipn;' not diily over 'asc; ,of lnhacy; but of.iiwtriinPnial ciiuscs. Thl decision, wlicit jirPjieriy cxawitied will bi rpniid (tf fustoin' the'ppslUdn we'hirvo as sunicd, that prpcetdii-gs, :fpr divprco d l ji05- .necessarily -jjcionj; to either tU( . chancery or ,couiraoalavrijqrisdictroqf d r the district :codrtsv. ? . . ,; TVo question's i only-rtmala for oar' coo , siderntion;' ' First, whcUer.thclegklntiir - lias grantcil to the pfoba'to eoiirt,,by glv ( Ing U'Jnrlsdiction in olfpascs of divorce i moro judicial power thati It is authorizc-J tp courcifby tho Organfc. Act; And spc Pnd, whether the defendant below, aftel haVing nnsweredr-coold raise the qticstion of jurisdiction. - Tlie judicial power of the Territory- is , vested in .pertain ! cpurts; Among, those named is the probate conrt, Tho" jurisdiction of these courts shall be limited by law. Vc have seen that iiclthcr tho common law Prphancry,juris diction of the d'rstricVcoiirts is iufrtnged by providing; for the, probate court to grant Uivorces; This b'elug' the 'easo it foltowa that under that clause "limited by law'f tlipdeglslature ia?: the right to select se-lect another .fornm,to. try, and. clothe another tribunal wltlMlie power to beat and deterroiuo. actions for divorce.. Tilts tribunal is the irobate court, and we see nothing intoaipatiblu, witi thejirp-vlsious-or the Organic Act, or tiiu orguni-nation orguni-nation of the distriet courts to prevent ibtegy.)tute. from iiassing ilia luw''con-fefrluif luw''con-fefrluif eXcitotvi JiirJatU-cwcir In tueh cases ion thfs court. IJUtit .may bp said thai tho defendant could iiot object to the Jn. risdictipu after having aiian-crcd. Tills tvpiild be-(me if the; court. Iks1 jurlsdic lion of the ubjcct-mlcr, -and the joi uenl' did riot appear upon thafewsor the ttxariYconuKiioiijudfa.- ' v Jn the Celubfatcd casis. of Yoorliles va the Uniletl State 10 Petes 101, "the doctrine fs well fccttleil, tliat if tho judg. tnent is not warranted by tbcfconsiitujiosi or law of'tho landtio jaost solciuir pro' cetdin- WHcomrjCo riglit. which is de. : iiiedto anyjudiciutnttuiidrcdioronlaw, tt'lifch can properly be-deemed .to have been, done atestUr jtuGa, thit is, by ; jiersoii assm'uiiig the judicial functiou: iii . the"-ivcn case without lawful authority - Wright vs. Marsh, Leo nhilipelbvaiii.2, ,U. Greene, tf t. The line whicli scparatea , error In jmlgmcnt from the usurpation, ol ; potter is Very deftnitc, auji ,is precisely . that wJilelr depotesf tho case wheu a Judg-i Judg-i ioeiitorIeercp is reversible only" by an ; appellate court, pr may be-.tieJardd a I nullity collaterally when offered Its pvi-. pvi-. deuce in eu aelioii conceniiug the roattct I adjudicated, or puf-wrtiug to havp becu i so. In tiiu one case the record is nbvo-I nbvo-I lute verity, in the other raero. waste pajtr. If then the court below exer-, exer-, cfced a fvrer not couturrvd by the Or- - ganic Act, or the laws of this Territory, ,aud not tnhircut In tho court, tho Judg-( Judg-( uitmt is void, and way bo taken adrac-t adrac-t lagc ut anywhere or befow, any court. : It is a principle as old as the law It-i It-i clf, that consent cauuot confer jur&dic. lipn, and if tho court proccoled to try i thu case and render the decrce itt tiU acr ttouover which it had Jto control, the jurisdfction of which belonged to anothci t court, tlie answer of the derndant conlil i not confer such JurisdietiPa,- aud tho judg- Went is void. ' ,.t,.. I Tliat sack, is the case, wit think wc.havc abundantly sliown by the fact (hat actions t of divorce do not peccssarily belong to i t purts of chuhcery or eonimon law jurisdic-I jurisdic-I tioo, that they may ba provided for by . statute, aud the judicial power of ihO-tcr. i ritory rcsnl'tng in part With the probate r courts, the legislature had the rlgbtiv bleb . they have exercised to give tlicnr the cx I elusive control otcr theso actions, t Tins dettto of the-sourt betbw is re's re-'s versed and iet-aside. ' ' I 1 rFu kum mn nisfat'cT cdnir secpd ! JCPlCiAt BMTiltCT. r OpiaioH ty IJearv 1. (jrothy, Avtdnti Tlfu was an action bf.lebt, commenced r f m the district court or the Second J udicisl s IHktriet, upuft certain iiromlssory uotes, amounting in thu egjregnto to tho sum of-'COO, wiiii imercst-ot 5 per cent per month, from Oct., 1854, until paid, and , praying judgment at tho time hoU was 3 brought for the snm thus alleged .dup ol Tho defendants In answer deny the j-iuaebtedr.csf, but admit that the notus i wero exemttd by a member of their firm, Mi op'itnebhhcl bn Bt U.e 5lHrorexecSitcd(W.lhe m ihemberbf thei HAa.jdTgtrWt4 tW (fjverat .pMe hlMiereoff tif an. rt icfcofnt jbP 4tt pl Wveral' payees, bii hlwtj nccoimtw o for Jifct oWrf Individual tnefitaB(ftha Lithe aht firitt, uaaifcly Itewui, t Co.; fifgne thereto.-wasvithpot their kttowjede m ., consewC,i"!d against tilts express aUniiii hV onpf, thefr'ijrm, Mip defendati j' I'Kiiisley acting for jdnhejf and -'thj. btfie ,f mfcintcrit,!(if tI ,rir,JWnd & Rccsi tiilioth't'o'tlic'Safd payees" 0,1" SBid-tmts, ah ,t!thp?atd liarnatd 4Bd IW.J4.!JW t4 whoih these' sieral iibtepJ we're afterwhlfi: .-'Iifmv'iv.it linil1 hilt nhtfpii ami k'nowieila rt of.ifh'lniiml; tlm ietpc(ratel jirctldos i j, tit the tln'.pf.purchaic pf.fahjf tiote d" - vliidgmjen. vns,- cnter,edi by tlefau iii against tlujHiftttii ttpWapIwaring'; Jud? djltscsp; Louts. BaTriard, -.tihtJ . gtcplicrt 'J fA Kinsley? nriil- Ua bn..,tria,l paiinstJoli g'f .Rcei-ftir ;tieiuino'f$2WiV 3!i il t 1 The .case wasremoed to4hfs coHrL;li M w'riS of. crrorj' j.Tho exceptions tuHcn hi Lflow .weref . isfThe. 'J'ncampctencjn of jtorf. on: the ground: of :p beinin.ta: r s'piiyer.hs rfqnjrcddiy,, luV); 2dj, Tha'ii f. erred in 'declining to give . thp. , jtfry tli a Ics'tructioija nskcilv. for1 by defendant I, connscl. V v ' ' , t,V ' , . , aii llio ajiplleatiPTi by- tlto defemtent I- baring the Case td the-supVcine cour,t,i ihr S 6crrsito hnd.'dlstftiettppinls of.'errpr, wet b assigned;. yet It appaats? from ihp rct'or ?- of the proceedings, ot'tfid, court licihv e" t!(&,t,tTieto-wereXmt,two exceptions take V by the defendant. . - . :i 1 'VfiifsVoll (iiat Is 'lieccssary lb bnnff . cn'so,frpn."htt inferior tp.tho superior ,wtifi " Isitl;thc;abfenee; pf. nity ilhtulpry'prov n sloti preefibing the furbia and rules t procedure dimply to filo4fie'rcc'ord,'th 11 crrprs rnay lie. assigned Iti thMpurt idiovc 1 stiirthcse;erriVrs must agrccr vriih. llio j " ccjttiorfs. .taken Iieow;;pr .cljScbp patcii 3. oifthe'recd'rd,,bdr'ls It. the .diitj or thl 5 conrttP iuqhiro' Into ati'd -Inspect the r 6 twtds.- of 'the-conrt; bvlowj'. --and defcTd , .whcrtln a .fjlcudinss-are' defective,' nn y wliert'lrf.the.tpurt'rrrcd In its' 'rulings an ' opmibps, .whetV'ihe law' lia's'Yrdtided'a 1 'the' weans; and feiij'edfcs by vvhicliVpart " canTtakc lidviiritugo of : sucti defects an' crrdrs.In,tio Jndgtrient of -(Imj court o ' otlierwiso. at thft 'prpjicr' tim?, f.Iltjrjie vs; Davis ilotris; SC5.)' If they arc' tfo j so taken, they are. "considered walvci1 ' The' -only p'piutP,r"therefdrc,,Sd far ns ci " ccptlpns arefd be considered; aro tlie w, ' tfiiVmnde..''- v ,l,;.(i'' , 1 T'lip 'first cite'eptiptf 4s asio the rpialifl - cation ot--onp uuntey to serve ns a .juror He jvn's challenged by the defendarit be 'low; on the groa'ud. that be was fncofnpo h tent", pot being a'Jax-haiycr, and, .oh , hi L irir dht answered as follows; " " " 1: TL'hai he 'did not ovrd taxable, projier 1 ty within the territory Pi Utah,1 Unit in was aware of; as he M not know jvlia J legally constituteil tu,-ablu property; tlia r he owned a walcb, a mining claim and; " fenU , - - i i 1 1. That he- did . pot pay tltes with'ii the territory of Utah, th.u he had nevei , ! been' called upon so to dj. U Whttvuptiii t'ha defendant, by t'aei: 'Kounscl ciiallftiijjtd sahl Kiunoy. "i The. court pvcrrulfid the objection nni ".aUu-cd,tlw Juror to bo aworr and sit ii -ttio, cuRa jTJmj statute irescriijin . tli i qualihciUions oi" jurpw it rt-'led uj,on ii MniplHjrt pf the objection a.s. to tj.e com "tpctency Pr eligibility of Ivituuv iu i ;Jew, r j Ji rs lrr,cf the fialutb prohibits an; jpcrn form. acting as juror ut4esvJio is j . tastpayer; but tiisjicstloiiariseheti;c this istututo, is. nut. iu toulfict .witlith ' cPntitiiUoji ol the United StatOiv-ifthiel ' provides arlivlp YlU, A.meudmetts ? 51 Tho right- of triiil by Jury -shall be pre 1 served. , - - , . ' . When Hie fraraer of tfra . ww titnlioi uscd-.the vvdfd jurj', tbey ustxf it will . refel'tiice to its ignilleatfon a.( coumioj I !aw(3vhiel was a jnry pf ttclvc raw ami houliplders. TheP, has the legwla . tore (he rljrht, uuder this couatitutiiuta provision, to restrict or unfair the righ ' of trial by jury, by prescribing any term, different from- tlosj that eoustitnte ?i lc cigal jury nt coinmoalaw. if thoyliftvo arighttosayhctfiiialipai taxes before beiug: eligible, liavc thev no" thk same right to say that liu shall posses any auiouiu nf property which they uiaj .j deem proper, and thus virtually haVo tb M effect to exclude many good citizens fron j a scat In the jury lips. Witcro are wo tt I I draw the line if the power to prescribe t property qualification is conceded? Sup .ppso the le'iMutnrc s-hould say that btf i'prc-a man was eligible ho should Imwortli ten tboti!aud dollars, and certainly they ( hate a right to exempt front taxation all property 'under this amount, wxnhl It not jopcrat in a country whera most of tho ijttojtltt arc from, to the entire exclusion of ,i thu right of trial by Jury, and no matter, I however opprcrsivo this must seem, yet, if you concede to the legislature tfiepow-eriti tfiepow-eriti theone case, you mustgrantit iu the . other, "Whenever this qaeitioahas been rntsetl, it has been decided, we believe, by out highest courts that the legislature has ;' ,ltl tap r'g.ht to aillx any terms other.tliau those prescrllicil at common law for the qualifications of jurors, f. The question lias often tfoiiio np where , tlie legislature allowed uo less mttubct . than twelve tneit to aet as a jnry, and , where a. majority verdict was allowed and . where the defendant in a criminal ease was compelled to pay a certain jury fee before . the trial; and in every instance tlio corns have, condemned aud ut aside such legislation legis-lation as an infrigcuicut upon the clause ol the constitution which preserves inviolate the trial .by jury. The, defendants' eoiro-;cl in the court be-' be-' loif asked , the court to iutrnet the jury that If they lintl thu phiiuiitT Knott h;id uotiee oriucw beforthe took the liptes uedupouthat thry wo giveti by the f defendant Barnard ouhjs private account, , and, for cattle purchased ior hiuuelf ud 1, not fdr-tiio firm then the plaintiff uuuut, I ! recovtr in this actioa against thy defiwl-, defiwl-, iut John Uetse.ncd lacy wtat hu.I-1 hu.I-1 1 tbo Ucfoijilutiitj. i 'flip court refused to w charge tho I ; jury bat siittitnttd thtt fulio.ving: s ''Tliat if the evidence establishes the f fact that ir tlie defendant Barnard Ijoiifflit the emtio fur which the.iot..s wero given ; on bis private ntiount, uud not Tor or uu-i uu-i on the .credit of the firm, but for li.mclJ, , of which the vendors- wero advitcd, or y lirdjKiiowlcdgo;ttthi';Uaetith6 siV, $ ;iAfcIJ case the plulfiUff Hnaotccpvcf. f iTfie substance Pt thq.luJrncitloti as ( of i tfflsi that If these hoiciltjchj good tf Uhq iarids,pf tlio origioaUjpayccs ,Jit rl iSildpotics flieycro good; also rtl IiduiJa, ttf "Knott lha slgticaj, wlftre d those, a5ied fpr,byjih) couiisjd. for tho d d fe'ndftttt k-lPW- wpiihnia'vd'ralsttl rttt it ty bcOceii tli& mlifeers; and tho yisslgu it ,f. these, iip( ps whif,ditl not exist betwe ; ' the, makers ami iwjtfsy,$tri'ry pit' prein cltornatusi secr. T2aud 1,1.-dr 1,1.-dr Jn-but!,T)f thcfe cecpttpii .tho con ,'o ttot tlicrtfots'jhstalifilie ridih 'of t taicqutlt fci-jow; bot therq is, bowevef, p f error' Jiat'eiit-pu tUpTrccoVd vrhlch' Is, fat r lt jtsjiita trirc. (6 (bo' regularity df the pt K f ICiia Jftdmdtit is liplp. ticcordaticfi wj Ii jt)i'fl'plitp4irttV"tfits-,,vas vanaetloitt i.,' tlepf aUd. llip tonrt, tjPtifd,- liavrt', rmkri m liq.ntlay-jmlguif lit' U!p;;,tlifs; -cpttiplai .. - bptjfor thc-6t(ginnl.'fiicpof 'tht)ptr 'iii f tl'O 5ntcre.it ijeornlng; therton.as datiinge Dtrtbut iq pJnepi of-this tho court , has.; re jv derWl judgnic)it, as in fliijnpsit'!fo.f , tl ji deUtJiud. damages omtiined;afid lihsspoj tt dftnlill farther in error , aitd rqiiden Q jiiilgtuclt't pnaterpst upon tha jijdgniofit-y jijdgniofit-y .the- cputract btiPmes iiierged.jn the jud . .mpnt aud lu (ho, absence of a stnjnto- n 10 tliprhing ajiiilgnjient to draw Interest, rC' ,was.inaii'eslrerrot, lit- the court n'war ijtg.it,- d The judgment of tbo eontt below pi. x r( versed and the causu remanded. n - ' : lAinTiiiT Wxtts-CoJ, CrclghtP( pgei a- pf the Pacific Telegraph Comahy, lc rt 't,hls"cljy oh Tftnrstl'y''inorn'iii,f,.iii cor . pahy with Mujor F-gati; for- Cnliforiii )f '.Mr', Crcfght'6u'.s (le)Hure;vP lenrii, lu is. bem "hastepcfl bj' thoridwa int therdis s; powcrfnl friflile'iie'e-belng' fiied, io prerci the telegraphic wires.destined fp mnte tl tt Atliiiiiic'' and Pacifier' Sutw, paWt fs throngh Utah. 3Irv 0. is" rullysattsfn s. ' that 'this Is WtKbcst rifc, and ddiibtte cr ho will advocate Its; el.dnis. Ho h: Jtparscd over the Bn'tterlield rente, son il thne "ago; hcticc, wlieUho rcaclics. Califd 11 tiia.hd will be Wrsdnally acqoalnUd wil r both thq kpnlherti qnd ceulral route d Wo rindcrtiind.th'nt those who'opppso tl r Salt" liake line, wish t6 have the win t laid via Uenyer City: El'Pnso; and them !t on to thq Biitterfiehi mail route. Uta l.l islti. tlie very heart of this; continent, t wc,fts. ivcll ns every conn try-jovlng Amei 0 cap, go in for iha 'ctiitrat rcaftf Fire t |