*1 compensation. titled to But such is not case. The service line is installed for the STATE Plaintiff Utah, and Appellant, only way
benefit of the owner. The get owner can the service he desires and Darnell L. Defendant GARCIA, needs to run the service line across his Respondent. property to his house. need Each owner pay only for the cost of its installation on property his own and the statute
him to do some of the himself and work re- avoid of the cost.39 It is to be
membered that such im- the creation of
provement body governing districts upon petitions improve-
based for such signed by property
ments of the two-thirds utility
owners within the district.40 The
companies instigators are neither the nor
necessarily making the beneficiaries of
such changes. is a difference be-
tween distribution lines all the that service
properties and service lines that serve property.
an owner’s All owners are
share in the cost of distribution line ease- pay
ments. Each is to the cost of convert-
ing underground line.41 his own service requirement
Such is not a constitutional
taking just compensation must which paid.
Judgment affirmed.
TUCKETT, HENRIOD, ELLETT and
CROCKETT, JJ„ concur. J., having disqualified
himself, participate does not herein.
39. See. 54-8-26. 41.Sec. 54-8-26.
40. Sec. 54-8-6. city in the degree City. Ogden
court of The defendant and held to over answer the bound district there- court where he was after tried and found The code- Houle, prose- fendant at election *2 cutor, permitted plead to the guilty to misdemeanor, trespass, crime of a days was sentenced to in serve a few jail. At the time the defendant here was brought before the pronounce- court for judgment ment of the judg- arrested court ment discharged the defendant. It. appear that was of opinion that the defendant and the co- defendant similarly were situated and prosecutor, that the by electing proceed to against the defendant as a felon and in treating the codefendant as a misdemean- ant, denied the equal protection defendant of the laws. Gen., Romney, David It is not a of the courts Atty. function B.
Vernon Atty. Evans, to the exercise discre T. Asst. review of executive Young, S. William tion, say error Gen., and we cannot that it was plaintiff-appel- to the defendants lant. treat manner, in cannot.re a different and we Wallace, Ogden, for defendant- Robert proceed prosecutor’s to view the decision respondent. informa against defendant under an TUCKETT, Justice. charging reduc tion him with a by the This from is an State ing charge against the codefendant arresting judg- the district of However, the trial misdemeanor.1 discharging the defendant. ment and granted in is wide a criminal dealing in discretion with Robert The defendant and one Randall convicted, grant statutes is and the after he Houle with the crime were 263, U.S.App.D.C. States, F.2d 127 382 Newman United powers dealing plea in accepting trial court wide from the to the co-defendant and allowing pronouncing burglar escape than thus defendant other just with a provided by in law.2 The court desserts —not the sentence conviction of on place discretion a defendant in its fendant. probation on conditions it whatever deems State, The case 4 Ariz.App. Cuzick v. proper. 537, (1966), point. The action of below There, brothers two were judgment within the court’s appellant plea entered discretion, being showing and there no guilty charged. Thereafter ac of that discretion the court’s an abuse permitted plead brother was to a here. tion is not reviewable While lesser, included offense. The defendant requests this court State sought then way this freedom of a writ judgment of the court below and reinstate corpus claiming habeas that he had been case, this are we denied of law. In affirm opinion that the moot matter now ing court, denial of the writ the trial beyond power of this court appellate court said: the case further.3 direct that appellant complain could not af-
The decision of the court below is *3 prosecute if the failed to his firmed. brother, or jury if a convicted him HENRIOD, J., and and acquitted brother, his or (3) if iden- CROCKETT, JJ., concur. imposed tical sentences were not on both. Therefore, he successfully urge cannot ELLETT, : (dissenting) Justice denial of laws was I dissent. Defendant convicted present situation. degree. no contention made that he was 77-31-7, U.C.A.1953, permits Section any innocent or that there error in the discharge one of two trial reason case. The the court guilty parties he order that be gave arresting judgment setting for state, witness for it has never free was that court had ac- been that this cause held a denial of cepted plea from the co-defend- equal protection of the Section law. 77-31- charge. ant a lesser 8, U.C.A.1953, also one to be dis- any miscarriage justice, testify If there is it for a co-defend- circumstances, would seem to on the ant under certain and when Johnson, 2. See. 77-35-17'U.C.A.1953. State v. Utah followed, discharge is a the statute prosecution for offense. to further
bar discharge appear that
It thus would charge prior defendant from not dis- beginning of trial would be a charge unless it another
court in allow the discharged order to de- testify.
fendant to pur-
In this there was no discharge statute;
suant and if the trial court
felt that error to convict other,
and not the it seems to me
should order a of the other discharging
instead of the one.
I would order of the trial judgment and direct
court to with the case. Duncan,
LaMar Lake Salt fendants-appellants. City, Ralph Tate, Jr., R. MAURER, Clarence M. Plaintiff and plaintiff-respondent. Respondent, ELLETT, Justice: Janke, Alma J. JANKE and Hazel M. Appellants. Defendants Janke, appellants, called hereinafter rendered from an adverse jury. sitting without *4 only dispute the time when a fence involves erected it established a and whether
boundary by acquiescence. testimony undisputed shows that feet bought east a tract of land
Janke