Show ZANES TESTIMONY lir TELLS HOW UK yak some konsh oay ke beher dyer the third effort to get an examination into the charges made by certain school trustees against receiver dyer and his attorneys williams and peters succeeded monday morning in securing a good start judge harkness was promptly ion hand as were also the attorneys for the respective parties judge marshall and mr appearing for the court as prosecutors and judge powers for receiver dyer and at peters and williams frank B and C 0 more appeared for tho trustees by consent judge marshall opened tho case by introducing as evidence the corn plaint in the case of receiver dyer ash S eldredge efa al this was the basis of the suit for what is known is the old constitution building grounds and property adjacent thereto which had been sold april 22 1878 to mr eldridge for and has since been sold to other parties air chrichelow helow offered as another admission of receiver byor the complaint in the suit against zions savings bank trust company for a portion of what is generally known as ahe wells corner north of Z 0 M I 1 in the suit of the receiver against A mcannon what was designated as the church stables property was introduced the complaint against arancis armstrong and abram H cannon for part of the wells ceaner was en teren as evidence then came the evidence of a battery of real estate agents who testified to the values of but the real interest centred in judge zane who took the witness stand judge marshall did you judge zane occupy aay official position in utah territory during july 1888 judge zane yes sir I 1 was judge of the third district court in utah territory and also chief justice judge marshall do you remember the filing of a certain petition on or about the ath of july 1888 in the supreme court 0 the territory document handed to judge zane judge zano this is a petition for compromise I 1 suppose looking at tho copy yes I 1 remember it judge marshall do you remember the proceedings had in open court ou that petition and the statements made by counsel judge zane well I 1 remember that the petition was read I 1 believe by mr peters if I 1 am not mistaken then a statement L think was made by mr marshall and I 1 think mr peters also make a statement judge marshall do you remember who was present whether the receiver and who of his attorneys judda zano my recollection is that it was mr peters and mr marshall judge marshall was the receiver himself preheat mr frank H dyer judge zane I 1 am not able to bay whether he was or not but I 1 believe he was that is certainly my impression judge marshall were any attorneys for tho defendants the late corporation po ration of the church of jesua christ of latter day saints alao present at that timo judge zane sheeks rawlins were tharo and mr legrande young I 1 belcove bel iove but I 1 am not clear about the last one my recollection is that mr legrande young was present judge marshall will you state what if any representations made at that time to court by any of the attorneys attorn for the receiver mr dyer or the attorneys attorn for the defendants affecting this comero compro judge zane well my recollection is that tho petition was read by the attorneys for the receiver I 1 do not know whether mr peters was representing the receiver or the united states really I 1 remember they stated the circumstance that the church authorities and persons whom they claimed to be holding the property for abo church were disposed to compromise on the terms substantially stated in the petition and for the amounts therein named my recollection is that the plot of ground known as the wells corner was compromised for the tracts not at time locate iu my mind but I 1 have since learned that one of them is the lot of ground upon which tho constitution building is located and the other is a piece of ground east I 1 believe of the tithing house called the cannon tract I 1 have since learned the second tract was called the constitution building lot and the other the cannon I 1 think ib was mentioned as the cannon lot afe the time but I 1 did not know particularly then where that was situated judge marshall was anything said at that time by any person as to the value of this land suits concerning which they proposed to compromiser judge zano yes I 1 understood them to represent that was a reasonable value under the circumstances of tho compromise and the circumstances of the case I 1 understood them to represent that they consid pred that compromise fair and juffe that is compromise proposed in this petition the receiver was re commending the compromise as I 1 understood it and bis attorneys T also understood that mr was recommending it but I 1 am not now whether as mr dyers attorney or not I 1 supposed at the time he was representing mr dyer judge marshall was any other representative for the united states present than mr peters judge zane not for the united states 1 think I 1 do hot recollect mr clerke might have been in there judge marshall mr peters had heretofore represented the united states in this suit had he not judge Zan eYes I 1 understood so he argued the original case I 1 think ai solicitor for tho united states judge marshall were you influenced by these representations in any way judge zano ob yes we relied on tho representations made there altogether I 1 remember I 1 was a little surprised when the petition was presented and when the amounts ol 01 tho property were referred t and the ground I 1 turned around to judge boreman and asked him if ho knew anything about tho value of this property he said he did not judge henderson professed to the best of my recollection that ho did not know we stated therefore that thero was no evidence there and that we should have to rely altogether if we made an order at that time unless wo sent out and brought witnesses upon the representations of the receiver rei eiver and his solicitors judge marshall was there any distinction made af that time as to the value of the property these sums being tto of that property or as to its being the value of any uncertain interest in the property T judge zane well I 1 understood tho to be fixed with reference to the that is the fact that thia was a proceeding against the church authorities and that these parties would claim that they held iti do not know tho names of the parties against whom the suits have been instituted they claimed to hold it I 1 believe this was in answer td one of tho petitions I 1 do not know whether any more suits instituted by the parties who so claimed under those circumstances I 1 understood that the amount specified was fair and reasonable for tho purpose I 1 could not understand whether the amounts were correct as stated but under the circumstances there was a fair reasonable compromise to the amount of for the wells corner and I 1 believe for the constitution building was also fair judge marsh 1 did you under stanl at that time that these bums boro any particular relation to tho actual of the land judge zane yes 1 so understood it sir judo marshall did you understand what particular relation it bore judge zane I 1 would not have authorized zed the order for the compromise without any reference to the value of tho property to bo so compromised judge marshall but what particular relation did you understand these sums had to the actual alno of the land judge zane I 1 understood it was about a reasonable value of that property from all that was said not exactly it might possibly bo more but of course I 1 did not suppose it would reach at any rate I 1 should never have approved of that order if I 1 had supposed it was under those circumstances without evidence judge marshall it was stated to you was it not that the land had actually been sold at these figures by the church judge zane yes some time before a good while before but the deeds I 1 understood were made at least some of them on the ad day of march and the law went into force on the ad it had passed congress several days before and been delivered to the as I 1 understood judge marshall at least at that time it was considered that this was a full purchase value of the land judge zane yes under tho circumstances cum stances probably not a full valuation if there had been any controversy about the title but the fact that the legal title was m these men and they were claiming to hold the receiver was claiming from tho complaints he bad filed it was held that these parties were either holding it as trustees for the church of jesus christ of latter day saints or the transaction was a colorable one merely to prevent the property going as escheat to the government that is the way I 1 understood it judge marshall was any statement made at the time by any attorney for the defendants the church judge zane I 1 think they declined to say anything to the best of my recollection mr sheeks and mr hawlins are here probably they recollect about the matter better L is they declined to say either way I 1 un however that they were not objecting to the order I 1 understood that the order was substantially by consent judge marshall do you now recollect whether this compromise was ever reported afterwards to the court or brought up in court for the purpose of being ratified or confirmed judge zane not to my edge I 1 will state that the order authorizing thor izing the compromise will show 1 that it was solely from the representation of the solicitors of the receiver and that thera is a clause at the conclusion of the order which I 1 inserted there myself because I 1 had some little doubts about the compromise and as to its being reported to the court for approval if the order is here judge marshall it is not here but will send for it mr there is a copy of it here judge perhaps for the purpose of refreshing the witness memory this copy will do ao object bionto that judge aana having kakta a vox ory glance at the copy judge marshall asked was there anything else took place at that time with ref ere ice to alio compromise that I 1 have not interrogate you concerning conc arning that now remell er judge zano no I 1 do nob think there is I 1 remember however after I 1 questioned judge bo reman as to whether ho knew anything of the balao of tho property and he baid he did not and judge henderson said that he did not I 1 asked somo questions of mr marshall and ho got up and made goma statement after that or mr peters I 1 am not clear which but T am inclined to think it wis mr marshall it might havo been both judge marshall can you state tho subject of your question and tho answers given to them judge zane well I 1 think tho question 1 asked was as to whether the solicitors considered it a fair and reasonable compromise under the circumstances whether they considered it a fair amount for this property and whether would be in the best interests of the receiver to compromise judge marshall or the united states I 1 suppose T judge zane yes I 1 supposed he was representing the united states I 1 understood they made answers to tho questions which me at the time and the other members of the court though of course I 1 cannot speak for them it is proper here however I 1 should state that I 1 do DOJ wish to be understood as saying there was any wilful misrepresentation or intentional misrepresentation by anybody towards the court but assuming that the property was worth over of course I 1 was misled as far as I 1 was concerned by the amount and certainly if it was worth I 1 was misled I 1 do not wish to say intentionally of course by anyone though they had moro information than I 1 had judge marshall was there an official stenographer taking down what was said do you remember judge zano I 1 am not prepared to say though thero might have been if there was I 1 dont remember to judge powers the first thing that was done with reference to this matter was tho presentation of the petition and that was read to the court 1 think mr eichardt Eich ards was present on that afternoon and I 1 be cievo mr young also judge this petition set forth the facts of the of various suits against different parcels of property judge zane yes some suits but I 1 do not know how many it also averred what was claimed to be the defense of the defendants judge powers and in tho angus M cannon caso tho answer had been actually judge zane I 1 think so judge powers and that demur aers had been put in the others judge zone well I 1 dont remember now about the demurrers they might nave been mentioned but I 1 have no recollection nov I 1 think there was an answer filed in one of them judge powers the petition states in the angus M cannon case it sets forth the defendants claim to have sold the property previously to angus M cannon for judge zane yes judge powers and in the eldridge case it sets forth i that the do fend ants had sold it for that they had received that amount of actual money judge zano yes judge powers and in the wells omer case he claimed to have sold and received judge zane well I 1 understand that they received the money but I 1 understood that notes had been given judge powers I 1 see the petition stated that the defendants claimed and alleged that this property was sold prior to march 1887 in good faith under a valuable consideration and the church received for the property you will find that in the third paragraph of the petition judge zane I 1 will not on my re to state the particulars tic ulars about it judge powers in these first second and third paragraphs was anything said about its being the actual value of the property judge zane I 1 do not think so I 1 have not examined them the petition will however show as to that I 1 suppose judge powers Is not a fact as you recollect that in those throe paragraphs it was merely represented by the petitioner that ho had commenced those suits and that they alleged they had received that amount of money for each parcel judge marshall we object to that interrogation the petition will for itself judge harkness Is this petition to go in evidence judge powers it is in evidencia evid enca now as part of our answer we have a right to see jusic to what extent the court was misled to witness you understood from the reading of the petition did you not that the proposals of the defendants was to compromise those suits by turning over to tha petitioners petition ers this amount of money which they allege they have received judge zane the amount of mon ey I 1 suppose in place of the land to be treated and used a the land would have gone judge powers you also understood frem tho petition that the petitioner tit ioner believed as advised by his counsel that he was acting in tha best interests of the parties in making this compromise judge zane yes judge powers and you also under blood that he prayed for adlisa and order of the court audgo zano yes judge powers do you remember what was first baid after the reading of the petition and by whom judge zane I 1 would not under I 1 take to say at this time mr peters n think mado an explanation find some statements and mr marshall also but I 1 really cannot say powers you think mr peters read the petition judge zano I 1 rather think he did th ugh I 1 say I 1 might be mistaken judge powers Is it not a fact that you spoke first with regard to it and asked in substance whether it was to be understood that this petition was agreed toby all the parties judge baoe I 1 do not remember that I 1 was first but I 1 think I 1 did aak that question judge powers aad then did not mr richards say in substance we meaning the defendant have no ob judge zane well I 1 should think that was about correct judge powers then did not mr young make a statement and say it was merely turning over to the receiver the property ho was trying to get judge zano well I 1 dont remember whether he said that or not ho might have done so judge powers then did not mr marshall say it was turning over the proceeds of the property and make some explanation of the condition |