Show WHAT RIGHT SUPPOSE a case the blue belt mining company is A der of a court of equity and erty regarding which there is a dispute in litigation is placed pending final adjudication in the hands of a receiver that functionary is an officer of the court the latter holling boiling the property through him jacob Dewa dewsnap nip is the plaintiff or claimant neither dewsnap nor the defunct mining corporation holds the property but the latter is constructively the owner until such time as the plaintiff establishes his right if he have any in the premises in the meantime an outside party by the name of lanoble steps in and insists on inserting a finger under the lid of the dish in which the property to is held in making his plea for or an intervention he asserts that the receiver and his counsel are no better than high grade purloiners purloin ers of other peoples peopled possessions and have been guilty of professional misconduct in connection with the property in litigation sanobie is informed by the court that he cannot come in as a party to the suit but as he has designated certain court officers and attorneys as a fraudulent lot he would be given an opportunity to prove his allegations before an examiner finding that things do not swim smoothly in the investigation matter lanoble throws it up in the paper in which he declines to proceed he takes the court by the nose and gives it several vigorous twists all of which is undignified and unseemly then the court appoints a douple couple of attorneys to take part in investigating the conduct of the receiver and his attorneys whose probity had been so directly and notoriously assailed by lanoble Za nobie noble the latter being directed to be on hand with his witnesses to make good his damaging statements the proceeding is all outside the channel of the main sult suit it is an investigation into the conduct of oer car tain officers of the court and to is not gone into on an the motion of either the plaintiff or defendant neither of them have taken any active part in it whatever the question of the payment of expenses connected with the investigation comes up the court orders that they be paid out of the property in dispute the question arises as to the legality of such an appropriation Is this or is it not confiscation of property held in sacred trust for the constructive owner and the claimant does this fund io the court or is it MAM held eld by it in the interim pen dh ing final settlement und under erthe the law if it does not belong to the court what right has it to dispose of the property as if it were the bona fide owner these interrogatories lead to another question of some importance to the parties in interest if lanoble can step in for political teal or other purposes and under the plea of intervention tion be the means of starting a sideshow side show to the regular circus does not the precedent open the way for others to do the same and if the gate money of the principal show is to bear the expense of running the booth containing the fat man the slender giant and the talking fish why cannot the whole proceeds be consumed in the same way of course this may assume a different aspect when the constructive owner of the property is not the late corporation known as the blue belt mining company but the recent corporation of the church of jesus christ of latter day saints yet we fail to see the distinction the court will have to excuse us for not being able to logically or reasonably concede its right to appropriate property held in trust by it for the parties in chief tor for the purpose of investigating the conduct of its officers |