Show The Dyer Examination The examination of the accounts of ex Receiver Dyer was resumed before Commissioner Com-missioner Stone yesterday morning when L P L Williams was crossexamined by Le Lt t Grand Young He testified Three days ago in your office I invited I your attention to the decree in the case of F H Dyer receiver vs H S Eldredge and asked you if the decree disposed ol that property and you said it did you said you could not tell how a provision relative i to it came in the decree and that there was I no finding of fact in relation to it you said I the decree was drawn up in your office and you could not account for the council house property being embraced in it To the COUrtMr Young understood as I I did that the five rods square known as the Council house corner was not included I in the compromise The witness detailed the manner in which all other portions of the constitution lot were compromised and a decree agreed upon as to them but claimed to have been astonished when he saw that the decree embraced the corner property he did not believe there was premeditated fraud in framing the decree but that it was flamed Inadvertence so as to include the council house corner Le Grand Young was examined by Mr Williams I remember that at the time of the compromise the council house corner was to excluded at one time I thought I would allow the case to be dismissed as to all the other claimants to proportions of that lot but afterwards determined to of fer proof and tako a decree quieting their titles which I did Witness described the proceedings that took placo in court resulting in the decree and continued No evidence was offered relative to the corner I prepared the find ings of facts on which the decree was based there was no finding of fact relative to the 1 corner I drew the decree in doing so I did not intend that it should vary from the compromise understanding I cannot explain ex-plain how f came to draw the decree as I did unless it was because of an understand ing I had had with Mr Peters and because he thought the government bed no case in regard to the corner and consented to let it CO I cannot remember having such an understanding with Mr Peters but I cannot can-not account for drawing the decree as I did unless such an understanding had been en tered into To Judge Judd When the church parted with the council house corner it received nothing for it and hence in the real estat compromise the church refused to pay any UIIl Ol mone In neu Of it I understooa that propert was to be relinquished by the government under the general compromise To the court 1 knew that Mr Peters thought the government had very slight chance of success in a suit for thecouncil house property Had heard him say so und remember having had an uriderstanc ing that the suit for it was to be dismissed I presume I drew the deciee as J did inconsequence in-consequence of a general understanding that tho government was to abandon the property I am not willing to admit that the decree is incorrect In a conversation between Mr Peters Mr Richards and my self Mr Peters said he thought he would dismiss as to the council house corner He did not deny thatat any interview between SolicitorGeneral Jenks Mr Richards and himself an understanding was entered into under which the governmentwas to relinquish i relin-quish all claim to the council house corner and ho partly promised that he would dismiss dis-miss the suit When I asked him later to dismiss the suit ho told nio to ask Mr Williams to do it I did so but Mr Will iams refused Mr Peters told mo ho understood the suit was to be dismissed that he thought it ought to be but he pre ferred that Mr Williams should do it To Mr RichardsIt was the understanding I under-standing between you and mo that I should offer testimony as to the titles to all claimants claim-ants to portions of tho constitution lot except ex-cept the corner and that as to that there was to be a dismissal This was my under I I standing with Mr Peters I Mr F S Richards was examined by the courtI take the position that the decrae I I was drawn in accordance with an agree I ment with counsel for the government that it was framed just as it should havo been and I should resist any proposition that there was either error or fraud in it The witness narrated negotiations be tween himself and Colonel Broadhead in behalf of the church and tho solicitorgen eral and Mr Peters in behalf of the government gov-ernment which resulted in tho compromise and an understanding that all suits should be terminated To Judge Judd I was one of the incor porators of the Literary and Scientific association asso-ciation We obtained our title from H S Eldredge who gave us theproperty It was to be devoted to a museum and scientific and literary purposes Eldredgo got his title from the trusteeintrust The association asso-ciation rested confident that its title was good One reason why the property has not been improved is because of a disagreement disagree-ment in the association as to which part of its land it should sell It had to sell one part to improve tho other as it had no means There is not nor has there ever been a question in my mind of the ability of the association to maintain its title Adjourned till 730 this evening at Judge Zanes chambers After announcing the adjournment Judge Stone said ho would like to have the attorneys in the case prepare to argue the following questions lIs the final decree of tho Supremo Court of the United States a bar to further pursuit by the government of property not named in tho finding of fact and if so Is the receiver responsible in any degree for tho decree or for the statement of facts upon which it is based IIs the decree in the case of F H pyer receiver vs H S Eldredge a bar Lo any further claim by the government to f = what is known the councilhouse progeny i prog-eny and if so lathe receiver in any way r responsible iti I |