Show THE THREE JUDGES Moroni M Sheets Goes to the Pen for Contempt A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 100161 An Appeal Will be Taken Xhe CarrlngtonlMerce Cage Other Bualnegf The Supreme Court convened yesterday yester-day morning at about 1130 the delay being occasioned by awaiting the arrival H nderson There were rival of Judge I not more than half a dozen attorneys ill ide the bar and the greater portion of these were interested in cases which they expected would be called IN THE CHURCH SUITS The case of Fran H Dyer receiver vs the late incorporation of the Oaurch Jesus Christ of Lalterday Saints wherein the plaintiff had asked for assistai ce to recover certain property and which had been referred to E T Sprague as examiner was called There was some discusion as to the best manner to proceed in the case as it wcul consume nearly the whole of a day to read the testimony taken btfor the examiner An Judge Hendersons suggestion each ot the judges was furnished fur-nished witu a copy of the evidence the understanding being tbat they would thus be able to familiarize themsslye I with it and be ready for prompt action Ot all points involved in the dispute when tne court met again Further hearing was then postponed until Saturday next SftNT UP FOE CONTEMPT M rra M Sheets it will be remembered re-membered was summoned to appear before the examiner in the above cases and did so He declined de-clined hAvover to aiiswtr any questions put to him concerning wuo employed him wuat property was under his charge and to whom it belonged The case was referred to the Supreme Co unlit un-lit its last session and an order made requiring re-quiring beets to answer He wus again taken before the examiuer but again declined and the action of the Supreme Court was awaited Mr peters called the attntion of the three judges to that fact informing tnem that Sheets was present in court and as in that he either ba required to answer or be dealt with according to law In rrsponso to the comma ad of the Chief Justice sheets steppe forwara aud was sworn Sleeping on the matter for a couple of weeks or so had however no et < ct upon him To each of the quoria etiere wa the dame responseuI decline to answer JUIIGE ZANE You have declined to I answer these questions before the examiner ex-aminer and smldecline to amwer them heeMr SnECTrf Yea sir There was a abort constitution between be-tween these thrte judges when Judge Zane aiiirmucsd that the Coat was of the opinion that the witness must be ootnmutd contempt until be purges hitnsdf of it answers the queaion1 propounded pro-pounded or IS freed oy tui ther order of the Court Mr Sheets went out to the in in the afternoon Just before adjournment of court Mr thetks preaentnd the following pe litton tor a a it of hnusus corpus which waj denied and tile cost bond on appeal to the 8uprem Court of the United 1 Stitea fixed at 3CO To the Honorable Supreme Court of the 1errilQ IN Tho petition of Moroni L Sheots re spcitully shows That he is unlawfully imprisoned de failed confined and restrained of his liberty by Frank H Dyer at the Utah Penitentiary at the County of Salt Lake in the Territory of Otah That the said imprisonuiert detention deten-tion confinement and restraint are Ille al and that the illegality thereof consists in thi1 to wit That the said Snoreme Court of tha Territorv of Utah in a case pending therein wherein the Uiittpd States of America is plaiutilF and the late corporation of the Church of Jesm Christ of Lattorday Saints and others dffondant did on the second day of April 1838 mako an order re ouiring your petitioner to answer as a witness certain questions then and there propounded to nun upon the application applica-tion of the rooiver in said cause for a writ of assstancs wh ch order your petitioner pe-titioner refused to obey whereupon said cort adjudged your po ii mol guilty of contempt ot court for refusingto answer said questions ai d made an order that yourpetitioner stand committed as for contempt your of said court uutil he should answer said questions and your petitioner peti-tioner shows that he is informed ad YisoJ and believes that the said order ot said court was and is without authority author-ity of law in thiF that the act of Congress Con-gress pretending to give the said court jurisdiction to hear and determine tho in matters involved and being litigated th said action is unconstitutional and void and that the said court has no i authority in law to compel your petitioner peti-tioner to give testimony in said cause Copies of the complaint demurrer and answer of the order appointing appoint-ing a receiver in said cause and of the interrogatories propounded pro-pounded to your petitioner and of tbe petition for a writ of assistance and the answer thereto and also of the warrant of commitment by virtue of which your petitioner is now impris prisoned are hereto attached marked exh bits 12345 G and 7 and made part hereof Wherefore your petitioner prays that a writ of habeas corpus may DP granted to the said Frank H Dyer commanding him to have your ppf tioner before this honorable court at a time and place therein soecified to do and receive what shall then and there be considered by this honorable court I concerning liim together with the time and cause of his detention and said writ that he may be restored to liberty M M SHEETS THE CABBINOTOKPIERCE CASE Some time since THE HERALD readers remember that Eli H Pierce our Brigham pity correspondent was arrested ar-rested on the instance of Commissioner Carrington who cted him to appear be tore him and show cause why he should uot he punished f ir contempt it being alleged that he had wrtten ard caused to ba published in THE HERALD certain articles calculated to bring the afore aid commissioner into contempt Mr Pierce immediately applied to the Supreme Su-preme Court and obtainol a writ prohibiting pro-hibiting the commissioner from proceeding pro-ceeding further and also citing him tc appear before the Supreme Court and show cause why the writ should not be made permanent Thecae The-cae came HP before the three judges yesterday morning Mr Rawlins appearing pearinglor Mr Pierce while the Commissioner Com-missioner was represented by Mr Powers The latter fil d a demurrer to tbe writ and also put in an answer the substance of which was that the Supreme Su-preme Court had no jurisdiction in the matter and that Pi roe should have first moved for a dismissal in the Commissioners Com-missioners Court He made a strong argument in lavor of nia uroposition and was followed by Mr Rawlinswho claimed that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction in such cases The luaUlr was suonvtteu |