Show I 1 I 1 I 1 SUPREME COURT FIAT It to iho of the Courts of I 1 these courts to enjoy the of of the an able argument shortly before adjournment yester id 3 y a the territorial supreme C 0 ur t rendered the following decision deci bion in the of wm of paniel rr a for akrit of pro hibl 0 o I 1 re strain commissioner hills of provo bom asin r in ofte a clife exel do precinct in which bid boffl ce was held in both these causes a IV III of profit Is petitioned for f 0 prohibit the defendant fro in further proceeding in civil causes now pending before him the defendant Is a commissioner of this court and is proceeding against tile objection of the rela to exercise jurisdiction over them in ci vil cases now pending against them actively before tile said do fondant at the city of arrovo county the residence of the parties in both of said actions Is such that a of the peace acting as such in R ald 1 city and precinct have no jurisdiction over tile rotators under the statutes of this territory these facts and conditions are conceded on presentation of the bieti eions this court was inclined to leave the rotators to their remedy in the cases by appeal or certiorari but we are u aged by counsel for at I 1 parties to tear and determine the I 1 limits of a c J i when acting asit as it justice 0 f the peace the defendant claims ris a le U on over tae relators rela tors and the r ig lit to r coed in the cases under se ati on I 1 the act of Con greams of B in re h th 1887 known as the edmu nd 9 tu er act which is as follows I 1 ita it tco appointed by the supreme court and district courts in the ter ishall may exercise all the and tion that are or maybe possessed or exercised by justices of t lie peace in said territory under the I 1 aw s tile and the powers bonfe ab Is w on commissioners appold d b cir cult courts of the united states it d by counsel for defend a nt t limitation in the section poa era and on illy to subject matter and only jim its the of commissioners to the subjects or causes of notion over which justices have jurisdiction but that as the officers wit 0 m Congress lias made justices are 0 afi core af territorial jurisdiction that ep they may and perform the duties of justices of the peace in any part of the territory and acting as such in an v part or of the territory thea may issue their process to and it may be served anywhere in the terri tory and that they hereby acquire jurisdiction over tile parties not withstanding the statutes of the ter bitoy providing territorial limits be yon which parties shall not be summoned before a justice of the peace this argument in ono sense and to a limited extent Is no doubt correct the commissioners commissi oneri appointed by this court are not ap ted to their duties in moin that official char acter Is not to any peculiar part of the territory but they are commissioners or the whole torri I 1 and there is probably ng limit or the place where may act as such but when a Commiso toner at any place cir precinct in the territory assumes the duties of a justice of the the peace under tile act ili question w as it the of congress do t hall to licate in him the duplicate dur office of lea 0 the p e ace at that lace Y le thinie nal lf this do bendan can I 1 sue its summons from and returnable to provo preci act dl resident of juab county and upon its service in that county takes jurisdiction over him then it is plain that lie e w r and jurisdiction that no justic fo t h e peace can exercise we are of the opinion that when a commissioner proceeds to exercise the and Jurl edle tion of a just i ce tile peace 0 in question at any reticular place or precinct ro has the same powers and jurisdiction over subjects and persons that he would have if he were a legal ly justice of tile an tho and by tae of the territory to act and exercise the duties of ills omee at that place or and no other or greater no e construction contended for by counsel for defendant would lead t 0 results un aist burdensome and utterly at varl ance with the coffel which all systems of I 1 ence in this coun try inferior courts for ti lode termination of local controversies of limited importance under it a citizen might be summoned to remote parts of the territory hundreds of miles froin his residence reli dence to answer tile most OI causes and be there compelled to select juries and in cage he saw fit or sufficient cause to remove tile case under aroln the commissioner who issues the process to have the cause against him transferred to a justice who would have no original and in case of appeal the call ae go into a dis brict court other than the one in which be resides or was served indeed it would fit once nullify or set pido all the laws of the territory respecting the place where causes cognizable by the justice of the peace should be tried this was not the into antion of congress it was only to da plicate justice of the peace in other and thereby give another class of citizens than those from which it was supposed justices were usually chosen representation in these offices upon equal terms and not with such additional powers and privileges as are claimed alij the and not for the purpose of annulling the laws of the territory but only to r vide further means for their n we are therefore of the opinion that the defendant Is proceeding erroneous ly jurisdiction over the re gators the remedy by prohibition hibi tion provided for by our statute laws of 1834 pages 39 0 and Is tile C 01 0 aw 11 rit recognized and rog 6 11 t acute see bici h of 11 ah e cited only ati thor izes the court to issue the rit chero there Is not a plain speedy and site quate remedy in tile ordinary course of law 11 this is the rule at bommen law on ex rom fee in the cases sought to be arrested by the writ asked foran these causes the subject matfess are those over which justices and Commissioners have jurls diction the commission er Is only pro cee cling etlou over th 0 dersons the objection has been made ey the eja tors and the commissioner commis ioner has erroneously decided aga anat them the statute has provided a r emedy in the causes by or al pr certiorari and this is tile 0 in inary course of law where the legislature has provided a remedy for correcting an error in a cause by a proceeding in tile atudo itself it bupt bp taken to be the plain speedy aria remedy in duo course of law which takes from flie r I right to resort to an rin a tty remedy which is not in due course of law ailigh on ex rem sees r 0 and r Z parte peterson 33 ala 74 ex d 3 state vs judge of county court II 11 W P ex gordon 24 lit 1 63 I 1 oo 00 plo vs marino court 36 barb vs 11 pac ite 13 utah vs ireland Ire lans pact rep utah 87 0 I 1 I 1 11 I 1 V 71 L i lib I 1 77 I 1 Z 1 I 6 I 1 Forth isrea 0 anthe irions are do 0 missioner min d faith a there has bee dive ralty of opinion the profession 11 slid among commisa as to the construction of the statute under consideration and upon calling ills attention to this opinion lie will undoubtedly desist from any furher t action not ift conformity to it zane 0 ja concurs Bo justice concurs the matter being one of sound discretion of the court but he had some doubty as to tile appeal boin a speedy and adequate fremody he delivered by ju dge henderson and disposes of a question of c importance hereafter a united states commissioner will exercise similar jurisdiction to that of the justice of the peace in which bla office is held in all matters arising un der the laws of the territory |