| Show THE DYER examination marshal daei was not present at the examination feba 1 having gone to the election at ogden mr peters was also absent R N baskin baski n appeared and stated that he desired to ask mr williams a question but on a whispered consultation with judge powers the inquiry was not made A S KENDALL 3 of salt lake city te testified stifled I 1 resided in nephi prior to 1876 am in the book and stationery business and also a sheep owner the outlook in the sheep business last fall was anything but bright I 1 purchased average sheep last augu august st at and per head saw some of the sheep turned over to to the receiver at centreville Cen treville I 1 looked at abc them with a view to leasing they were below the average I 1 considered the proposition for leasing them for one year think the sheer sheep might be worth per head bead and I 1 would have paid a rental of 18 cents I 1 made that proposition to the receiver he thought bethought he could do better so I 1 did not lease them I 1 think 18 cents would be a fair cash rental for one year for of such sheep scattered in 30 or 40 different blaces places in the territory to a responsible le man to judge marshall if he was not a responsible man it would make a 8 difference even though he were hon est eat in that event he would pay if he made it and if he did not he e could not pay MY I 1 have 1700 sheep out on shares I 1 I 1 get two pounds of wool and i twelve lambs and the old stock kept good know the situation of the tithing yard at nephi it to is worth about 1500 or 2000 to mr williams I 1 do not know who holds the title to the tithing yard M K PARSONS was recalled and te testified stifled on october 1 1888 a fair equivalent in cash for two poun is of wool and ten lambs on the hundred would be 40 to 45 cents per head the increase comes out of the average of the herd p L WILLIAMS was recalled and to mr baskin said the receiver was appointed in november 1887 and employed me aa his attorney almost immediately after I 1 think he spoke to me before he executed his bond he empio employed ed mr peters afterward how long lone I 1 do not now remember I 1 dont donit know how his em employment came about but it was shortly afterward jud judge e powers stated that he be bishel wished it made a matter of record that the attorneys appearing for the other side were in addition to J judge d 0 marshall and mr critchelow for the court J M zane P F stevens B R N baskin and C 0 whittemore te mr zane said he did not bot a appear ear in the case mr baskin stated that hat at he meely appeared by courtesy of af counsel MR MB WILLIAMS continued his testimony the chief duty of the receiver was to take into his possession the church property I 1 knew of a stipulation of the trans att of personal property to the the transfers of real estate we fou found nd by research as to the worth of personal property which had belonged to the church we believed it had been deeded away to evade the law the first records of title to real property that were examined were those relative to property in salt lake county bounty that took some time we labored quietly because I 1 did did not want the county recorder to know my purpose our antagonists I 1 thought were endeavoring to defeat us we had a proceeding oy bi writ of assistance in the original case se it was against bishop pr preston eston col ol 01 winder gen burton and other defendants we took that proceeding to determine the title to certain personal property about the thing office the surrender of which was waa refused the petition for the writ of assistance was made by the he receiver we took no steps to make the we stake associations parties to the rAkin suit I 1 it did not occur to me I 1 heard the feasibility of such a pro beding ee ding was suggested a few months BO we might have got an injunction on restraining them from despos celet a og of the property they had re eved that view of the case did not occur to me it appeared at the outset that litigation litigation would have to be de resorted to for all the property we took steps to investigate where the property in the different stakes was to tio be found there were a num ber T of persons sent out for this purpose mr J H wolcott was out for tte months before the compromise was entered into he took charge of the he church farm later in the sum raer r before then he had been to the part of the territory he ported ported from time to time I 1 link think ae y first trip to emery and san ban juan he uan counties was in april 1888 y was also in summit wasatch St organ gan sanpete San pete sevier utah and other counties in pursuit of property te gathered some testimony but V generally oto Ile rally met with obstacles in all sections I 1 dont know whether ry one else eise was sent from this city there here were others in various lo 10 aties r from whom the receiver ob talu hs ed in information formatin we obtained no prior to the compro comero or gw that justified the abrl bringing a ang A suits suite there was a bugge suggestion I 1 on to to test the title to a ward eting ting house in salt lake city 48 rt it was held by the ward assoria A UON 0 that was a matter belon belonging g I 1 g to t ne main suit sult it was our d duty u to wall all church property yi the law y es cheats real property we took arty y that was exempt exempt we exea but a nominal rent for the mple 10 block because it was notor did sy used for public worship we ather oth not find property in cache and by baties counties that had been deeded was the le church to other parti esthere head hP datert perty Y that we believed was laL for the church there was no toy arty situated like the church 14 perty in in I 1 salt lake county the M Sarf was yaU all in private parties and anol ui lot been in the church or by agte e but 1 I 1 think the pro property A was waa aily yield held f for or the church C K ye the re braot of the church would mislead V us w when he u not under oath but they simply would not tell so we took proceedings to compel witnesses to talk we did not summon witnesses from different localities but had that in contemplation we did not get that far in the case that was all mr baskin why mr peters summon those witnesses and show his whole hand mr williams you had bad better ask him 1 dont know I 1 think he had time up to the present lp resent mr baskin you knew it was important por tant mr williams certainly I 1 did and we worked as hard as we could could under the circumstances we contemplated tem plated calling witnesses from all the counties where there was church property mr baskin how could mr mi peters try the case without knowing a 11 these facts mr williams williamg he had in contemplation the calling of witnesses for that ahat the defendants made a substantial surrender such as would warrant a final decree for the purposes of appeal those in the government above mr peters were satisfied as to this the decree reserved for further action the properties still undiscovered you are asking law questions and I 1 will give you a law lesson mr williams then proceeded to explain the various legal phases of the case as it stood on the final decree mr peters was not diverted from his purpose by the compromise the question I 1 win will answer in my way if you will not interrupt me the surrender of the property suspended the prosecution mr peters got the result of the litigation 0 O n he was pursuing judge u d e powers objected to mr baskins interrupting the witness and protested that he should proceed in a gentlemanly professional and courteous manner mr baskin said he had not intended to do otherwise he got a little warm however and when judge powers said mid he would object to his appearing at all mr baskin exclaimed Y you ou can do that just as soon as you like at this point judge J E ar mcbride having arrived from washington came in and took a seat beside judge powers mr williams continued his testimony 1 I considered it the receivers duty to secure all the property of the church that he could find in the inquiry concerning my compensation pensa Densa sensation tion I 1 said we had p prepared to bring suits in several bev cases when it was stopped by the compromise among these proposed suits was one for a part of the wells ro perty several in regard to the church hurch farm and several in gard to personal property all of the ie property we expected excreted to sue for was not delivered delevere de livere but most of it in value was we contemplate suits for property in logan and elsewhere we purpose going ahead when we have proper opportunity we had a schedule of the persona personal property prope arty before be fo re the surrender on the compromise m r e it is much easier to sa say 4 VIT hy y ard nt you do this 11 tha than n to do it we could not commence comin ence suits suite without knowing something ol 01 what we wanted the property was in the hands of those who would bupt tell us anything about it to save our souls from purgatory and you know it we did not know whom to sue nor what for to have proceeded as you have enable au suggested would have been to enable them to effectually conceal the property so we could not get any of it t we had the inventory just before the compromise was settled I 1 first learned earned of the proposal to compromise in may 1888 from the government attorney I 1 was familiar with the negotiations in certain portions legrand young and F 8 richards did the work for the church with mr peters there was continual contention between us mr peters was rather aggressive the defendants were frank in their admissions of owning certain property e rt they proposed to surre surrender Arop specific s specific property and we wanted atall it all they claimed that they the did I 1 d not own the outside properties e you have referred to and it would have to be settled by litigation mr peters insisted on getting all of the church property the property ert surrendered was accepted but not as all the property judge powers objected to interrupting ru tin g the witness judge judg e harkness said mr baskin was a little too rapid in asking a question before the witness got through with his answer mr williams continuing the defendants claimed that they surrendered all of the their r property it was not to end the original suit at y and that is not the of the original decree whether there were to be supplemental decrees es cheating property of a personal nature was not discussed there was some trouble in getting the property orgert yi there were no high chur church officials 11 present at any of the negotiations col winder and the attorneys were the principal parties to the arrangements I 1 was waa present when the final decree was entered the compromise was made between the church and the government not the receiver the receiver was subject to the agreement the receiver made no compromise he took all the property he could get and proposes to pursue the rest as he can there was an agreement to take for the property which was left of that which had been inventoried inventories invent oried at more than a year before I 1 think the was a much larger result than we could have got aby by litigation 1 we could not have got th the e property otherwise and I 1 think the th a receiver rec iver had the duty to do the best thing under the circumstances without consulting the court it was his duty to take the most he could get it would have been a fruitless search on the evidence we had and we had used due diligence to get what there was the findings finda gs of fact informed the court of the compromise mr hobson had to do with that and I 1 do not remember prec Nely what occurred it is not exactly a compromise the facts were laid before the court I 1 would refer you to the gover government counsel for more eipl explicit icat information it was stated in the decree that other property could not be followed judge powers objected to interrogating the witness on this point as the decree showed for itself what it contained mr baskin why was it a clause was not inserted providing ro viding that 0 other pro property could U be followed J judge dge pow powers ersi oba object act to that the compromise ampro se is with the church a and the government not the receiver mr baskin if the compromise was not final for all the property the decree should have so provided judge powers that is for the main case this is an investigation of charges against the receiver and his attorneys mr baskin Ba Is not this an inquiry into the compensation of the attorneys mr williams no lawyer would call our charges unconscionable you would swear they are reasonable judge powers said the compromise and decree must pertain to the government counsel J judge harkness ruled that the question u tion was waa between the parties to g the e main case but the witness could state if he knew mr williams the decree contains the provision which you ask about and enot say why was it left out the decree carries out the idea that we could pursue other property that was the understanding the compromise was all one transaction and was reported to the court the compromise was just so much property offered which we could not get otherwise the receiver was authorized to take the value of p property where he could not get the articles the whole matter was reported to the court long before the final decree recess was taken till pm or as soon thereafter as the supreme court which met at 2 pm should adjourn in the afternoon mr williams again took the witness stand and his bis examination was proceeded with he testified while I 1 was in cache valley I 1 did not find a tract of eighty acres of land deeded by arta D young to john taylor as trus tee in trust if you know anything of that kind we would like to know it taking the deed I 1 did not strike that deed the deed was introduced in evidence it was given in 1879 by arta D young conveying 80 42 acres near logan to john taylor trustee in trust of the charca churca Ch church urcA mr williams said we got the schedule u e 0 of personal property rt m A april 1888 brought rou ht ten su ts in the district courts by y the receiver some of these are still pending some have gone by consent against the government by the compromise we got consideration in seven suits three are a still pending because the church protested ro tested they did not own the property involved the real prope property arty cannot be es cheated as t there here is no provision in law for that the main case is still pending in this case if we were to discover p property r 0 95 A y we would not sue the chu church r c a as s the corporation is defunct but would sue the possessor Mr Baskin but the church could not be prosecuted mr williams 1 refer you to the attorney general of the united states mr baskin what is your understanding mr williams no matter what my understanding is it is not my business but that of counsel for the main parties mr baskin what about the sheep mr williams the books showed sheep we did not have proof enough to collect so we took as clear gain judge powers I 1 object to this it has all been gone into before judge harkness said it had been shown that was more than the church had mr baskin you relied on their statement 41 mr williams yes sir air but we reserved the right to pursue more if we could find them As to the the defendants insisted that there was only lett left the government wanted and was finally settled on the defendants fend ants made no specific statement of property except 1400 head of came cattle some horses etc they proposed to turn over all ajl of the property remaining and make the balance in cash we were to receive the cattle as inventoried inventories invent oried but we found that they were not worth as much as they were inventoried inventories invent oried some of the best beat were sold and we refused to take the rest at the figures asked so we took the cash our agents saw the cattle and refused to take them |
