Show 1 1 aei a I 1 all the of the delegate r PIT attorney peters placed in a peculiar light I 1 CRIMINAL CALENDAR i IF A prisoner makes a bold attempt to I 1 I 1 I 1 sarious I 1 Iry Vly I 1 d to braill concert ft dale other THE VOTE the Cau lAssing board IN labors yesterday morning at 0 the board appointed to canvass the returns territorial me al the of the utah com 1 I salt like city and or ionized with 0 W powers as the other members of the blaid were lewis S hills and henry W dawrence of salt like county andr IV cross and 1 rank J cannon of weber county the returns ere 1 a very good cond atlon and the canvass was coal plated barlog the afternoon A few precincts had sent no returns kane and sin jain counties polled a straight vote returns as by the board john T caine it N baskin samuel R thurman abram C hatch 1 abram hatch u I 1 judge barmett I 1 R M baskin I 1 1 I 1 R N emerson I 1 scattering 2 s awis is the ft election foi delegate to congress orce the passage of the it must be remembered dis franchises the women of utah and for the majority for the peoples patty not being larger THE slite ani 01 liars think I 1 bat fair pay I 1 f the examination concerning the compone altion to aich the marshal Is entitled as receiver in the suits against the church was continued before referee spragues eo thursday afternoon aar rawlins renewed his motion to strike out I 1 he testimony I 1 that had been taken in support of this mr sheeks was sworn and fled that he had dot received any notice that the receiver was to bo called AS witness the motion was not passed upon by the examiner alio stated that he could only submit it to the court further elguea ant it was finalli decided to call E P afef testified the 1 present before the court ilia ex per lence as an executor al estates in which both real and personal property was involved he thought the compensation received should be upon the basis of the amount of pro e r from the church X h e of the bond the aih a almia as compelled to give and also thought that 6 mr bedl of the total amoust of property handled by him would b i fair mr Rawl sr that the re celver was also a U ted states mar that his duties is receiver did not him fr attending to his battes dattes we marshal would you say that the compensation would be me same ferry if one man ban do two amens work I 1 see na reon why he should not receive two mens salaries P L williams testified that he had been am as counsel a little oyer a year pooled AD I 1 I 1 original aults against the church in the evening another session was hold at which marshal dyer 7 asked what he goj services were worth ile tes tided I 1 consi dermy serviced ser vicea ic L t loss 25 petera ta say in of the abia amount would t pe Sath factory dad the oth er kids would be imy claim and I 1 have been notified by them that they woul danake no ob to that amount the antome I 1 lor the III mr M Wi have been given to understand that tile church will not app aba amount this being so I 1 rel the government here ar dyer i dy er I 1 am am not prepared to state mr rawlins remi aked that it tile government was not represented the taking of the testimony tee was if it wall to fix ahe com In atlon of the laverso lt verso far as the church was concemi dt the receiver hold asked to IO church attorney i had not objected and prolonged examinations simply added to the costs rily inthe government the the should be mr sheeks to peters you do not represent the at this chent mr to to a certain ex 11 I 1 I 1 tent bl sheeks how fart mr here aid tay proceed ith the examina alan mr S beeks but to what extent ao rel I 1 ament the government 1 aux here attend this examination I 1 thu mr sheeks I 1 d entitled to enow to just what extent all lea interested the govern aum r f pat t a church th e reviver and 11 8 entitled to rep re buthe sen tatian pot depre ted aba sybe alq f t he 1 VORs ve ap 1111 9 w I 1 I 1 11 rawlins to mr dyer would you be satisfied ath air dyer yes mr are in forests at make man our own in this matter if finally successful III this asue the money ill go to the bublie this territory and someone should look after t is interest I 1 do not think the atlon IM should proceed unless the ove r nm ent Is represented here if r gr e e r a acting as attorney fr r ft receiver 1 fixing this bompensa tao there ought to be preset who Is responsible someday for ft vern we make the suggestion and think u rider these circumstances the pase should not go on ams said he recognized atud d to recognize aar peters aa A government repress represo so ter as this was concerned ile wanted to pro celd with the examination and was bot willing te act upon the suggestion that came from the other side whatever compensation was all ow ad tiia receiver it must be fixed by tier 1 court after all As the govern t itself has allowed their frig best officer to come in lie rawlins indicated over air bleeks it Is well ownby lawyers and certainly by y for tile all patties should mr peters declines to say whether lie represents the gov eminent or not if fie does not represent the government then we are pending our time here for nothing ell t testimony adduced will be ille ati and improper As to our anxiety we simply place this one thing upon a legal proposition have tile p ar t le s been it not wily s u 1 we ro e g amther thought to a certain extent at least al r to to not see where the clients of rawles would be at all injured net ther could he see any good reon h the examination should be post n it tb gentlemen for the 0 dc to cross bramme th t was ate williams certainly should be allowed to introduce such evidence as he desired mr Rawl itil in regard to anxiety williams and peters are the r the receiver and are interested in seeing that his compensation Is placed as high as pos sible that is A hit they are paid for an tile government rovern ment would certainly want it ail low as pos sible if we at a simply to play an examination and enact a batee we coughl to know IL it the government not represented there is a legal in consistency about the whole affair it la cort aln billat illat mr peters god and the devil at the same time the interests of the ogiver and the government are antagonistic lie must appear as ilia representative of either the other last evenin gliet the receiver with the views of filing ids cowpen tation as high as possible now which side does he apgar T on again insisted that bir williams should be to introduce dueh evidence As be desired upon this line of proceeding bedink 1 atod meders sheeks and ha tillus brovo tile examination ille examination is continued ma the fA lowing were 11 auerbach thought hat ilia position of the ree elver re burd A great deal of tact and energy t lint t lie character of the in an alo as ible to give a bond of should be taken consideration and thought 6 per cent not too much W H similarly fred simon thought 5 per cent on the property fe covered and at per cent on the abou amou nt turned but a just compensation 1 goldberg thought was little enough air it evans thought tile suhl asked wad cry low J E dooley said there were por lions of the property on which a collector would receive 10 per cat cwt and other portions 5 percent Ile thought it bad taken a good dealoe tact and perseverance to ferret out tile property I 1 B thought 5 percent per cont on the total amount would be A fair compensation the examination was continued y as afternoon I 1 1 the of iford to be transacted I 1 next terin the following cases will be heard during the november Noi ember terra of wie first district court which begins tile united states as havel been set as follows boy xoy 21 the united WID smith f mith cohabitation I 1 bounsel for defendant the united states to wm sheen forn leation richards the united states vs martha wai fornication richardso the united states vs jol n thorpe unlawful cohabitation 1 richards it ohp p I 1 4 tb uld states vs IV 11 Blaag hn unlawful cohabitation r two indictments 01 ol united states vs james afat unlawful kimball bey 1 the united sta W vs As me far fad unlawful cohabitation richards the united atts i vo 31 arilia evann son fornication fornic atio richards it clapp united states vs amr methe neal A the rola cited vs savage unlawful cohabitation richards hotopp 11 the united states 76 tander unlawful ff richards bolam I 1 ir I baday NOV 23 the kijja sietes vs hyrum man up cohabitation M 1 11 st t vs ilear stall d adultery richards A ap ahl T uita states vs fre erick ap the to john cohabitation richards no L united vs alanson nor tn richards W I 1 1 tile altea states vs C herlog kel unlawful mich ards ROAMI AT NOV 41 me luniw states vs alexander jr 0 IV tile united states Vs ersul son unlawful cohabitation richards I 1 NOV 20 i tl 0 unia states vs unlawful cohabitation A A A K 41 14 1 H VV r M ff pa the united States vii jonah evans adaller Adalle kimball white tile 7 titled vs jonah evans unlawful the united states vs rdward rob bins unlawful cohabitation richarda A R clapp noy 0 1 the united states vs nells hanson lawful cohabitation richards clapp tile united states vs r 01 richards nov 28 the states Vs axel chris adultery tile united MAW vs frederick A Now bergor unlawful cohabitation richards the united states vs nella 11 rag musson imla Arul cohabitation rich ards the united states vs geo graehl adultery hicha da the united states vs bengt peter son unlawful cohabitation richards 0 nov 30 the united VL ireney boll richards R I 1 app tho un cited stites vs wm willie co bablon the united states vs win williams adultery richards tile united states vs annie J henson fornication ito lapp SATURDAY ditc 1 the united states Adram vs hillam unlawful cohabitation tile united states vs louis land unlawful Iti chirds t a p 4 th e states vs ieter 0 jenson lawful cohabitation kimball ihu ante the united Vs gey unlawful cohabitation richards iwa alio fald state vs goo davis un lanful richards A I 1 I 1 the united states vs ole anthon jenson It ichards the states vs john 1111 gren cohabitation richards MONDAY 3 the united states vs 11 S wheel w r g lit unlawful cohabitation kim ball a ihlae the united states vs jam wraye unlawful cohabitation richards the united states vs james keller unlawful cohabitation richards TUESDAY DEC 4 athe united states vs john 11 bar richards ai ill a 11 p jhb 1 ailed I 1 vii andrew hani son al 1 awful richards t I 1 tile united states ya john ashar Ash Sr unlawful unla ful cohabitation richards states vs elas olsen fornication richards the united states vs chomas B helm adultery rh harda the united states s jano fornication richards WEDNESDAY DEC 5 the united states vs liew B wheelwright adultery kimball W I 1 0 o 11 no united states vs catherine wheela r irit fornication kimball the atte efty ellen ward fornication richards ro I 1 aphia united states a peter swenson 0 unlawful cohabitation richards t it 0 lapp the united states vs peter swe son adultery richardea Richar dsA TH DAY DEC C the united states vs peter ander son adultery richards collipp Rol lipp the united states vs blau E briggs adultery the united L states va it charles barrett unlawful cohabitation richards Ri chirds the united states v a oliver E in nota awful cohabitation rich waz itola awo anim states vs absaloum woolf unlawful cohabitation in 11 those cases the united states district attorney appears for the gov ern ment CARES NOT YET SET afie following cases have not yet been set for trial the people etc va Jo nathau li et al unlawfully taking w ata appeal X 0 emerson hyrum awault with a deadly weapon 1 R ito 13 rs ith 0 etc vs peter miller et al burglary the 11 reo loeta vs Amos Peirson as ault aill battery appe 1 I th ai mith tile va james cowley petit larceny the coplen city vs julius fast driving appeal N tanner jr for city and J 1 lomax for defendant fie people etc vs ivor iverson et al interfering with water rights ap richards the united states va A JK ersha unlawful cohabitation kimball li white the people etc vs levi sith embezzler nent J D lomax the united states vs neils hanson richards ogden catir vs james middleton selling liquor on sunday two indict m ants N tanner jr lor city and L it rogers for defendant the ogden city vs john D row land sellin liquore etc X tanner jr lor city S A kenner and L it rogers for deafen c rho hoople vi i Cli atles F blandin et al obtain money un if der false pra temeo P r the people etc vs adark hill in arder kim ball I 1 white the Ir eople etc vs jerome brodil battery the peaple etc vs johnson grand larceny marsh A maloney the people etc vs wm E at al battery th ka Ts charles chase disturbing I 1 fie appeal kimball dwhit aiden cl vs lun chung appeal N I 1 r for City kimball valto for aenlo aden City VS james calvir t A r peal N T tiner jr for city L J rogers for defence ir ther it ale ate vi 1 wl son pir appeal L it I 1 f or plaintiffs emerson 6 alli son for derensis de tensis I 1 W 40 people etc vs thomas brown A I 1 E P johnson for delatine de latice pl I 1 a petiole vs albert war ren appeal 0 0 richards for f onea 1 1 brighom no ity v s ld 80 R chose aa 1 R 11 jo 3 for plaintiff I 1 ILI I 1 for defence I 1 0 1 I li 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 4 k ji 1 the people etc vs J B carr I 1 to x to 1 al R 11 jones for plain t iff 0 for defence ogden city vs Zachari alk As t ill appeal N tanner jr for cl ty smith for defence ogden city vs bl ichael drozdowicz Droz dowitz 11 peal N tanner jr for city L it rogers for defence ogden aty qty va james thompson appeal N tanner arl for city smith asmith for defence ogden city vs james B er ap peal N tanner jr or C 7 t ty L R rogers for defence no people etc jf B barring Car rIng ton extortion appeal R 11 J for 0 IV rowers for defence the people etc Vs chris larsan et al appeal thomas for debenc J the cited states district attorney appears for plaintiff in the above cases where it is not otherwise stated |