OCR Text |
Show lNJCNCTlOp DENIED. Judge AmWson Senders an Opinion in tho OK) Tort Block Cant. DENYING TOE INJUNCTION ASKED The City lias an Undoubted Bibt to Dispose of tho Property as It Sees fit Judge Anderson this innrninsr grve a decision in tho east of W. 1.. Pickard vs. the City of Salt Lake, denying the application for an injunction to re--.train ttie city from entering into ft cin-traet cin-traet with James 11. liacon and otners fii- the i-ale of the old fort block. 1 lie opinion of the court was lengthy, j covering eleven panes of type-w i ilteti luauiisei ipl. It recites the lads of the cau as thi'y have been published, re-callinu re-callinu the various steps that, have marked the prueeedings. The opinion i goes on to state that there ate three quest nnis to he determined, as follows: First Has the city right or power to sell real c.tate? Second It' it has this right, has it heretofore dedicated or applied the land in court to tho uses and purposes ot n ouiiiic ti'il-k in such !i milliner And to such an extent as to take nway its ri'h! to now sell it.'.- Third If the city has the right to veil real eslate owned by it which iias uot been dedicated or applied to the uses an-! purposes of a public park or other public purpose or use, is there anything in the manner of making sale in the present ease, or in the price to he received, or in the declared object to be attained in making the contemplated sale, to authorize a court of equity to interfere and prevent such sale. The conclusions of the court are, briefly, as follows: Tho evidence shows that the city purchased pur-chased the ground on the 1 1th of March, l'7 l. The records clo not show that it was purchased for any special purpose. The city holds the ground free from any limitation. The charter of the city provides that the city may hold and dispose of real estate. lint it is held that the proposed con-trsct con-trsct is in violation of the law of con-gre-s prohibiting municipalities from subscribing to the capital stock of. or assisting pritate corporations in any way. 1 his act does not interfere with llio right of the city to dispose of its property. 'liio evidence does not show that there has been any dedication of the land as a public park. Even if tho square had been dedicated, subdivision 8, section 1 of act 4 of volume 1. compiled com-piled laws, gives express authority to vacate public parks. It is contended that the price (Sl.'iO.OOn) is insufficient. This is a matter with which the courts have nothing to do. The court is of the opinion from the evidence that the price is a fair valuation, valua-tion, but with the wisdom or snumjDuL. r i ,. ,j mi ili i TiTnTrrffl'for' TtTTTo- "UTS i business the courtsjiave no jurisdiction. The law docs not require thiit lands be sold to the highest bidder, excepting such as are required under the townsile act. The court held that it might he more advantageous for the land to be sold to Raeon for 1. 10,0110 than to others for $.'(10,0011, if thereby an important railroad rail-road can be built into the city which would not otherwise be secured, Tho docisiiin concluded: "For the reasons given in the foregoing opinion it is ordered that the application for an injunction against this defendants be denied and the complaint be dismissed." Itefore .Indira Zane. Judge Zane convened his court in room IhJ this morning and took up the civil calendar when Judge Towers, counsel for William Diamond made his appearance and launched a motion for a new trial upon the basis of a volume of exceptions and the further citation that new evidence of a very material nature had been developed. The motion will be argued tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. John C. Gray, native nf Scotland, August Seivert of Germany. Krick F.rickson of Sweden and Christian Johnson of Denmark, received their first papers this morning. The following unlets were made: Aaron Keyser vs. Wilcher Jones. Order vacating confirmation of sale and permission to file supplemental complaint com-plaint N. W. Flaisig vs. M. Blackburn; judgmenlfcentered in accordance with the report of referee. J. J. Hammer vs. M. Rlacl.burn, same order. Frank J. Smith vs. 'A.J Gunnell; judgment, and $To for attorney's fees. |