Reports of Cases Decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Utah, Volume 4 (Google eBook)
Utah. Supreme Court, Albert Hagan, John Augustine Marshall, John Maxcy Zane, James A. Williams, Joseph M. Tanner, George L. Nye, John Walcott Thompson, August B. Edler, Alonzo Blair Irvine, Harmel L. Pratt, William S. Dalton, H. Arnold Rich
A. L. Bancroft, 1890 - Law reports, digests, etc
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
action affirmed alleged answer appellant Arthur Brown authority Boreman cause charge claimed cohabitation common law complaint concurred Congress constitute counsel crime criminal deceased defendant defendant's demurrer district court ditch divorce dollars duty Edmunds act entitled error evidence exercise facts fendant filed grand jury granted guilty held indictment injury instructions intention issue judge judgment judicial jurisdiction jurors justice justice's court land legislative legislature Lehi living marriage ment Messrs mortgage motion Musser negligence objection offense opinion overruled parties patent person plaintiff plural marriage polygamy prosecution question Railway Company record refusing rehearing respondent rule Salt Lake county sexual intercourse statute sufficient supreme court term territory of Idaho territory of Utah testator testimony thereof third district tion trial United unlawful cohabitation Utah territory verdict void wife witness wives woman women writ of prohibition Zane
Page 66 - In case of any other transfer of interest, the action may be continued in the name of the original party, or the court may allow the person to whom the transfer is made to be substituted in the action.
Page 494 - When there are several charges against any person for the same act or transaction, or for two or more acts or transactions connected together, or for two or more acts or transactions of the same class of crimes or offenses, which may be properly joined, instead of having several indictments the whole may be joined in one indictment in separate counts; and if two or more indictments are found in such cases, the court may order them to be consolidated.
Page 179 - ... and in the meantime may discharge the defendant from custody on his own undertaking of bail for his appearance to answer the charge at the time to which the action is continued.
Page 228 - You are further instructed that you are the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses and of the weight to be given to their testimony.
Page 62 - The distinction between an accessory before the fact and a principal, and between principals in the first and second degree, in cases of felony, is abrogated; and all persons concerned in the commission of a felony, whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, though not present, shall hereafter be prosecuted, tried, and punished as principals...
Page 367 - A writ of review may be granted by any Court, except a Police or Justice's Court, when an inferior tribunal, Board, or officer, exercising judicial functions, has exceeded the jurisdiction of such tribunal, Board, or officer, and there is no appeal, nor, in the judgment of the Court, any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.
Page 381 - The supreme court shall also have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts and courts of the several states, in the cases hereinafter specially provided for; and shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts, when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction...
Page 41 - ... jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding be not specifically pointed out by this code or the statute, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this code.— Code amend.— 1880:43.
Page 316 - Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?