OCR Text |
Show Thomas Homer's Complaint Isift Held Good by Judge a ACTION IS BROUGHT TO M ANNUL NEW FRANCHISER IP Utah Light and Railway ('uu t paiiy Must Answer Sm Complaint. The light trust hns lost iu the first j& rouud of the action filed by tho State, ex rol Thomas Homer, against the Utah Light and Railway company and fI Salt Lake City, to annul the Irnnclnso llfei grunted bv the cilv to the light trust, VM and to prevent the city from lun-yiugfiW out its portion of the contract. Jijfll Tho basis of tho suit was that lUr.vor Morris aud eight membors of the City y w-Council w-Council were members of tho Mormon jj K church, and, as such, were interested iu Mi the franchise granted to the light trust, because of the fact that the church owned a large part of tho srock ol the 55,' Utah Light and ttailwny company. f3 The matter, it will bo remembered, flSri was beforo tho court preliminarily somo Jjjf. months ago, when it was di.soo ered that the franchiso granted the trust prevented tho city from iuodiiying tbo'M franchiso in anv way, upon penalty of surrendering to tho light trust ccr- & tain lands and rights in Big Cottonwood Xft canyon, together with anv improve- W menrs that tho citv might have placed flK thereon. When this discovery was SfT mmle and it was made by The Tribune 33 the clnuso was changed, so Hint tho Slj citv will be protected. w Tho case came before the Tu'POjKn Wednesday on a demurrer to tho complaint," which set out that .thoji5 complaint did not state facts futlicienty to constitute a elauso of aclion, nndWg that Mr. Homer had no right to hringj& the aclion as relator for the Stat". M The demurrer was overruled bv Judge Morse, his. decision being as follows: tjm Decision of Court. 3j,it TN THE DISTRICT COCRT OF S VLT i M Iko county, i'tah. Thomas Homer, etc,, fijj plniniiiT; Salt Lake City et at, defendants , Decision. )ik In the case of the State of Hah. at the ' relation of Thomas Homer. aRainst MU Lako ; SJ City ot nl a di-murrer to thr amended com. ; Sf plaint has been arpued ant! submitted. Ufa It ih alli'Kcd in the complnint in this caso : ijj that tho Church of Jesus Chrbt of Latter-, Skj day S:itnts is a voluntary ncsonaiion of in KP dividuals organized, amonir other tilings, for l, the purpose of ensaclns in commercial pnr jai suits; that the defendants, K. S- Wells, W. ! .1. Tiiddenhani, A. F. Darneg, .1. II. Preeeo, F. S. Fenibtrom, K. II. Davis. F. J. Hewlett, members of the City Council of Salt Lnkq jfl?,' City, and U. P. Morris, Mayor of Salt Lnk.Tfj City, were members of this association, ni ijll as such wero co-partnrj with all the other Jkj members of mi id association: thut snld ns"'' jafe ciution was encased lnrpely In commercial en- MTTj terprises, by and through Joseph F. Smith, as trustee in trust for tho said association: Wg. that the said trustee holds and controls and Wff has tho local title to a part of tho stock of Jfrj tho Utah Light nnd Railway company, 'which. iJ is held for t ho benefit of the members as en JU partners of said church, Including the dofeiirt-JlP? nuts above named; that, the City Council ol W$ Salt Lako City, nt the dateh mentioned in the ft complaint, consisted of fifteen members; thsl 4 "i on tho fourth day of August, 100r. the sald.i lC Council granted to the I'tah Light aud Rail- H way company a valuable franchise, that tho- "J said franchise was granted by the vole of 5 eight of tho members of said Council; that j among the eight voting for said franchise. , jjl wore tho soven members above named, snd ft their votes wero necessary for the adoptiou' of tho ordinance granting mi id franchise; and Jj that by said action the snid defendants grant-J F rd lb an association of which they wero mem- Ml bers, nnd in which they were, co partners, this 1 fp franchiso In which they had a direct pecu- f. niary and valuable interest: and from thesis ; acts it is contended (hat the grant of such franchise iu void. I am of llin opinion that this contention 2l5 is well founded. w It is, however, contended on behalf of tho w defendants that tho plaintiff merely s a resb fflfr dent taxpayer has no capacity to maintain Js nnd prosucntc in the name of the Stale as re- If. latter, this action. I am of the opinion that aF" under the procedure as established Sn this If State, tho plaintiff may prosecute a relator MM in the name of tho Statu such an nrflon Tho 1M: demurror to the complaint, therefore, mint J? be overruled, and the defendant will bo given twenty days to answer. fp Sanford Represents Horacr. 4Bi Alleu T. Sanford represented M'r.E ljomer upon the argument of tho de-$E murrcr, and will now push the case tojOfc a final issuo as rapidly as the court JO calendar will permit. 'IE |