| OCR Text |
Show THE DYER EXAMINATION'. Does Ibe Flaal Decrc Estop Pnr-Snit Pnr-Snit of Propcrtj! At the resumption of proceedings before Commissioner SUne after the noon recess yesterday, W. H. Dickson Dick-son was" sworn In behalf of Mr. Dyer. He testified that P. L. Williams Wil-liams was an attorney or excellent standing and ability, and compc. tent to act as the legal adviser of the receiver. Mr. Winiams resumed the stand and testified that neither the receiver nor lik .attorneys had anything to do with the settlement between the Church ani the government for the jiurposc of obtaining a final decree. Henude this verv explicit and emphatic. Witness understood that, notwithstanding the final decree, the government might continue to pursue property. Had read the final decrw lately with care, and he now considered It a grave question whether or not the government hai a right to pursue pur-sue other property; the decree diU not reserve that right to the govern-ment govern-ment unless by Implication; if i. was the design to reserve rUch a right, a mistake was made In drawing draw-ing the decree; the mislays liatir: I butablcto Mr.UoiouorMr.Pe,'' or both. The witness further tesllfie,!: The receiver and mvwirinvo.ii .t'll tb8,M J'Sre? Wa' "lSS,OB the theory that nronerty coald still SfrU"5 '111 3 uaB ". " a ' tcrney for the school trusters, pjeadedattlmbar of tho TetStoriTi oap.-eme Court, that the final ,t, .,naan "peltta thft further puftu t of proparty. This led to the conslderatrett of tbe matter by the TeI,'?.r' rayseIr an1 JIr. l'eien rbe Utter held that the decree was that it had jn agreed lfJiim,!S.t!ro, Jeu suItS ll'ave nevef been instructed by the de-partment de-partment of Justice to dismiss them: they were planted in May, 1SSS; one reason why they Iuve not U pushed was becauw; they iaTi fiever been rvgularly rcathed on the equity calendar, and the receiver and nlyself preferred to try them before the court rather than have them go before a referee; while he never aked for a continuance, the receiver did take into consideration the fact that If the decision of the united States Sopreme Court wts madebefmo they were trfel, and If it were In favor eftf.e Ciiurch.the expense or the suiti would be baved; IdwaH Uiink the diday willprt-, willprt-, judicetbegovernment in obtaining ibe propirty, If It is entitled to It at all. returning f the Jecrco in the caseof lb- receiver vs. H. S. El-dredgej El-dredgej and iti eff-ct uiwn tho ttatedtbatln his opinion, the dc-cree dc-cree might well be pleaded in bar to an action by the government to rr- cover mar property; the decree eo laras it afiects that property, ouzht to be amended; it is lncons'slent with the proof submitted to the court The reason why the C j ncd House corner wasomittsd from the compromise was becanscthe Church refused ta jay ony m or Money In lieu of It, (he scientific association wwe satisfied with their lilh;, and refused to pay ny thin-, and tlio receiver refused to forego any right lie might have tiieiie it, however thadowy. Thus the issue was left to be determined by litigation. II. 3. Kldredge cm-veyed cm-veyed that property to the LiUrarC and Scientific Association, Oct 6 ISSG, but I think thev hid nr..(on two or three years U-fore that, under un-der Buaie sort of a coalractj I don't know why the property lias not bc-eu improvar; my belief Is 'that tho conveyance was a fnud, and that the reajn why the prort,v ' is not Improved la becau e i of a fear that the government may iccover II; if the bottjai facis could b; readied, I brlleve it is Church prorcrtv and sublect tn it i think suit to recover it ought to lio DlintrJj it is worthfrauiS'5.0tj $30,000. The reason why the $73,000 compromise com-promise for pergonal prop.-ily was not laid before the court for its aj. proval before cansioinution. ws, because we did not dretu It r-m"-sary to ak the court whelherue should take f f,0l or nothing; r'-mralns r'-mralns that there could be nouu-s-lion as to tvhat we ou;ht to do. To Judge Judd 1 1 was in October 1SS7 that we first learned of the existence ex-istence of the $253.0011 worth of pereonsl proprrly;it was turnrdover by the Church to tbe -arious St'", i In February 1SSV, eight months ie-i fore wo kuew anything about it; wu Cou'd not then iJenii.y ibe , c'jickens tliat liad b;en hatcbr J fiom the eggs and the butter wa very stale if not eatn up; the honey was t,trong and we knew nolhiug of tbe brands on the caltie. Bishop J. K. Winder was examined ex-amined by JuJe Judd. Haveac. 1 in Ljhaif cf or as ajent for tha Church; tk thecouroe adv'ted by counsel for the Church; in O.-tob.r; 1SSS I paid a not;, given to tho receiver, for SI37,O0J5 the price of property that had been coniprom-i coniprom-i d; to raite the money two iiotjsof S30.O03 each and one for $G0,))0 wero given to McCornick's bank; we had also to borrow the 75,000; we have paid the drst notes in cash and other notes, but are still in debt on account of tbrse sums of money; tbe receiver demanded 33,0po head of sheep, and to make up the num-bjr num-bjr wc bad to borrow 3,000 head, which we did. To the court I was always op posed to giving $75,0)0 in Ieu of the personal prorirty; I wxjld rather have let the ra elver tike his clnn-ces clnn-ces ou recovetiug il; raitj for it would have b en conlestsd si eve-y point, becau-e tbe proparly had been Iraasferrt 1 by the Church; a very la'ge proportion of Hie piopssty must have been con sumed; ttie proj-irty was Inven-Oricd Inven-Oricd at very blh figures, wheat bsip; put at $!.( J per bu bil wlien not .3 cenlscould have been realized out of it, aur trau-rortinc IIJ for nltlo inventoried at 23 pr head, the receiver offered, air they weie gathered from remote pokil-, $12 per head; I can't think tlie whole i&S.OOO worth of property would have brought 30 ccars on the dollar; at the time it was turned over to the Stakes; it consisted largely of office furniture in 503 or 400 different differ-ent oIBces; the produce and lire stock, etc., wero valued hieh, ct tithing or donation prices; I was opposed to paj lug tbe 575,00.), but I understood tho respective attorneys had agreed upon a pe'tlemcut with the government which required It and I understood this transaction was a part of tbe whole settlement willi the government which -had b-en arranged for the purpose of a final decree, and was connected with tho real estate compromise and the other transactions In the ce. . Thomas Marshall, of tbe ffrm or Marshall & Koyle. testified to having hav-ing known Mr. P. L. WiUanu ever siocr the latter was admitted to the bar; think his shudins is 'qual to that of nny attorney at the bar or this Territory; regard him rs coni-iieient coni-iieient counsel for the receiver; I am still of opinion that the compro-nilsecf compro-nilsecf real estate was wise and proper on the receiver. To the court I only refer to the two cases in which I was engaged; am not familiar with others. John A. Marshall, the present attorney for Receiver II. M. Lawrence, Law-rence, was examined by Judge Judd: Have kuown I. L. Williams since 1S7S; his standing aa an attorney Is excellent; consider him competeutas counsel fr the receiver: receiv-er: my chief information concerning concern-ing tbe Ogdeii suits has been obtained ob-tained from Mr. Wiiliaais; no new suits have been brought by the present receiver; the Ogdea cases are set for trial. C. S. Varian was sworn, and examined by Jude Juidi Tje clauding of P. JV. Williams at the bar is good; have been Unitetl8tates DUtrlct Attornej- i!dc ftlwut July. 1SS3; rilVfe oeen connected with the case of the United States vsTSb Saints; have had no communication E'i Vhr ytn General rS Sr?Uilh?I Pur5uIt f CmVrch propertyr could not say whether tte matter has been referred td In correspondence cor-respondence between mysdr nd departmeot. I havcTonX ng in that direction; it Is a qui: tion with me how far I ought & an. -wer questions reUtlnj-to my ?! resnondence with tho Attorney Genera), Gen-era), I Upnt now recollect any ref-ence ref-ence mjde by him to thl.matter. I nave taken no sh v . C .?L mo,?, nrDrrly; have not deemed it incumbent upon me to do. or to take action in tbrcase wi'out special InstrucUons. i ' . . was swrn and examined ex-amined by Judgo Judd: Have rr7-nhu .WV"ar -cntJS years, his proirsslonal .t,r,.n. ., the bar is first class; I think him a lawyer orsufflclent ability to direct ""Pj J-n or Uie rece ver fatrUtoVo!?ow!V,roWM Adjourned till 10 a. m. today. The proceedings opened this momlpg by Mr. Williams Uln-crosE-sxamined bylGrandYounr. Mr. Williams testifledl Throe days ajo, In your office, I netted your attention to the Decree Is.' IL-m "W iMt,r'JiU??Jse'ana "s11 yoJ ir the decree disposed of thatproD-erly, thatproD-erly, and yon satd It did; yoir said you could not tell how a provision relative to It came In the decree, and that there Was no flndlnior fact m Trillion In II, nu. .I.TU- deckce was drawn Up In yourofflcc, and ycu could not account r6r the council Hou-c proiiertv btlnr cm-braced cm-braced in it.- " To thepourtitr. Voun under, sd CS I did Uiat tho five rods square, known as the CouncT Houh: corner, was not inclujed ln the compromise. The witness dc tailed the niinncr -In which all other portions or the constitution mwcre com promised, and a decrre nsnied ujjn as to them, but claliucd tobaye been astonished wbea he saw that the -decree embraced the corner property; he did tol believe there was premeditated rraud in fiamlng the deciree, but that It was framed by Inadvertence so as to Intrude In-trude the Council Hcu corner. Le Grand Youug was examined by Mr. Williams: 1 remember that at the tlnfe of tha compromise the Connc'l,Housc mrncr was to be excluded; ex-cluded; at one time I thought 1 wo'ald allow the eass to Be dismissed a!to all the other c'aimants to por-tionsortnitloLliut por-tionsortnitloLliut afterwards de-termlnetl de-termlnetl to offer pnf and take a decree quieting Ihc'rt-ltes. which I did. I .. w'loa"lC.I'jedthe procredlnss I that took phce ln sjurt tcaulllng in the decree-, and continued: Xo TidCnce was offered relative to the corner; I prepared the findings or f cl on which the decree was based; theie was no finding or Cm relative to Ibe coi.'e; I drew the decree; in doing so did not Intend that II Miould vary from the ccmpromlro ujderstacding; I cannot explain how I came to draw Uie decree as I uiu, uuiess it was because of an umJerslanJing I had had with Mr. Peters, and becaiise ho thodght the povemment had no case in regard to tho correr, and connected to let It go; I can oo t ren'eciber having such an ondcitlanding with Mr. Peters u"t I cannot aceount for drawing the decree as I did unless lauch an understanding had been I enleicd Into. i To Judge Judd When the Church parted with the Countil Hoisocontr it received nothing ror it and licncc, ln Uie real estate compromise, tlie Church rerusrj to I py nny sumor moDej In lieu ar ii; I understood that prony was to be ieliuquibed by the government uc(5er the general compromise. To ihe court I knew tliat Mr. Peters thought the government bad veryllht chance of si'cccsS ln a ! SJil for thV Council Hous property; proper-ty; had heard hWieay so, and I re- , lnea'bsr having had an understanding understand-ing lhal tho suit for It was to be d'smisMsi;! presume I drew the decree de-cree as I u'td in comyquence of a gener?! understandinT that the xov. ernrrent was to abandon that proj-erly; proj-erly; lam not willing to admit Uiat the decree Isidtorrett In acouvcr-saiion acouvcr-saiion between M-. Pet.-r. Mr. n'c'iards and myself. Mr. Peters said he thought he would dismlts as to the Council Home co-nerjlie rt'td Uot - deny Uiat at an interview between Solicltbr-Ueneral I JenfcR. Mr.-Iilcba'dgand himself an liiuuerstanuing was entered Dto under wliicbibu government waste rtllnui'Ii a'l c'alm to Uie Council Hoots coroc-, ajdhe jauly promised prom-ised that be wou'd dismiss iheuiit When I asked h:m latr to dlmirs tbe- suit hetoldrretoa'k M-. Williams Wil-liams to do II; I didso. butM..Wil. I'ams lelUK-d; M'. IVte-a told me he understood tbe suU was to bs d'smUsrl. (bat he thought It oubt to be, but he preferred that Mr. Wilt liamsshould doit. To Mr. Hirtards It was the nn--kleitJindlnT between vou and me that I should oSer I -st'mony as to tbeiii'es ionllclaimams to portions or tbe Coosiiluilon lot except the coincc-ap that as to that (here was tibea'd'smissaUthls was my understanding un-derstanding with Vlr. Peters. Mr. F.S. Richards was examined by tho 'court I take the tosillon I'latlhedeciee wra drawn in ai-co ai-co Jaicewiih an agreement wiUi coJU'sl for Uie government: Uiat it wrs framed Jest as It should have been and. 1 should resist any pro-po-il!on fiat there was either error or fraud in it Tbe witness narrated the negotiations negotia-tions between liini'ilf and Col. R.oadlicad in l!ialfof the Ciiurch, and the Solicitor General and Mr. PeleiJ, in behalf of Uie government, govern-ment, which rt-ult;d in tbe com-prom'.e, com-prom'.e, and an understanding that ell sjits should be termiualJ. To Jme Judd I wasoneorthe ineorporat ra or the Literary & -Nc!enlific Association: wc obtained our title from U.S. KldreJge; who gave us the properly; it was to lw devct-d to a museum and scientific and literary liuriosvs; KIdredte tot Ms title frona tho Irusttc-la Irusttc-la trus ; the Associallon rested coafiJcnt that iti litle was gooJ; one re sn why the property has not been improved is because or a difarct-iiicnl in the Association as to which jaiccf ils land It should sell; It haJ to sell one part t im-pioe im-pioe the other as It had no njtau; there Is not, norbas there ever lcen. a question in my mind of the ability of the' Association to maintain its title. Adjourned till 7:S0 p.m. tomorrow, to Judge Za ne'a Chambers. AlUr announcing Uie adjournment adjourn-ment Judge Stone said' he would like to have the attorneys in the c-ise prepare to argue the following questions: 1. Is the final decree of the Supreme Su-preme Court cf the United States a bar t further pursuit, by Uie government of properly not named in Uie finding of fact; and ir so, Is the receiver resKnsible In any degree, for Uie decree, or Tor the statement of facts ur an which il Is haed? 2. Is the docrce in the case of F. H. Dyer, receiver,, vs. H. S. Eld-redge, Eld-redge, a bar to ony rurthcr claim by the government to what U known u Uie CouncU House property; and ir so, is the receiver in any way responsible re-sponsible for it? |
