Show THEIR compensation marshal dyer thinks his years service is worth WILL THE WHOLE LOT THEN THEM I 1 the church attorneys retire from the ax the examination into the qi question alstion of compensation of the receiver and his attorneys was again proceeded with before judge sprague yesterday afternoon the day before the attorneys had bad asked for bac each b as a their cot compensation for advice there was the peculiar position of one ot the counsel tor for the plaintiff in the case the district attorney claiming pay for advising the receiver an effort was made to sustain the proceeding b by evidence that the attorney general of the united states said that it was all right on resuming lug the hearing at 3 p m yesterday mr rawlins renewed his motion to strike out the te testimony simony that bad been taken in support of this mr sheeks was sworn an aad testified that he be had bad not rece received ivea any notice that the receiver was 10 to be called as 9 a wit witness the was not passed upon by the examiner who stated that he could only sube it to the court further discussion ensued anti and it was finally decided to call E P ferry who testified I 1 live in paricity park city and am engaged in mining at one due time I 1 was engaged in the lumbering fad nd alto aleo the banking business nave bave a general knowledge of ane work done by af mr r dyer as receiver in the case oi of the united stat states es against ahe late corporation of tae church of 0 jesus christ of latter day saints my knowledge of such work has been guined from the newspapers and also b om a perusal of the testimony of the receiver as given on wednesday evening Q have you such an acquaintance wita the kind of bf property he be describes as would enable you to forma form a good ides idea as to what would be a reasonable compensation for his services mr rawlins I 1 object to that the examiner 1 I do not think I 1 ought to pass pasa upon the retention or rejection of day any of the testimony offered but thit that I 1 should report it in full to the proper court mr ferry I 1 oase base my judgment on my ay experience as an executor of several estates in which both real and personal property was involved I 1 think the compensation received should be upon the basis of the he amount of property he recovered from the church and the magnitude of the bond he be was compelled to give I 1 should think 5 per cent upon the total amount of property handled bandied by him would be a fair compensation mr rawlins suppose pose that the receiver was also a united states marshal that his duties as receiver did not prevent him from att attending epdIng to his duties as marshal would you say that the compensation would be the same me mr ferry it if one man can do two mens meds work I 1 see no reason why he should not receive two mens salaries P L Willi williams tims testified that he had been employed as counsel a little over a year and had begun ten original suits to recover church property HIS ELIO f further statements were simply a recital of the case as published in marshal dyers testimony yesterday A discussion followed as to an evening in session the attorneys for the receiver wanted one while the church attorneys protested the examiner finally anally ordered a recess till 7 30 p m on resuming at that hour marshal dyer was not present after a time he arrived however and was questioned as to what he be thought his ser d vices were worth he te testified stIfled I 1 consider my services worth at least mr peters has declined to says say in behalf of the government whether this amount would be satisfactory but I 1 have notified the other side that this would be my claim and I 1 have been notified by them that they would make no objection to that amount ane attorn attorney ev for the government in this matter is mr hobson mr rawlins we have been given to understand that the church will not oppose thal amount this being so who represent the government here mr dyer mr dyer 1 I am not prepared to state mr rawlins remarked that if the government was not bot represented the taking t 11 f the testimony was useless if it was to fix the compensation the receiver so for far is as the church was concerned ou the receiver had bad asked for the church attorneys had not ob objected acted sad and prolonged examinations at simply a 0 I 1 y 8 added d ae d t to 0 the costs unnecessarily rl ay if the government objected to tj the e amount the government should be represented mr sheeks to mr peters you yon do not represent the government at this examination then mr yes toa certain extent mr sheeks how far mr peters well I 1 am here and ready to proceed with the exaudina examination mi mr sheeks but to what extent do you represent the 91 government emment mr pei peters vers I 1 am a it ere to attend this examination mr well I 1 think we are entitled to abow to just what extent all parties interested the government the churca charca the receiver and his attorneys are entitled to representation it the govern mentis not represented there may be some question tion about the legality of the transaction mr dyer would you be satisfied with mr dyer yes mr raw ins there lara are other interests at stoke stake than our own in id this matter it if the government is finally successful in this impe the money will go to the public schools of this territory and someone should look after at ter this interest I 1 do not got think the examination should proceed unless the government is represented here mr reters peters is acting as attorney lor for the receiver in fixing this compensation there ought to be somebody present who is responsible for the government we make the suggestion and think under these circumstances the case should not go on mr williams recognized and proposed to recognize mr peters as a government representative so far as this investigation is concerned he wanted to proceed with the examination and was not willing to act upon the suggestion that comes from the other side whatever compensation is allowed the receiver must be fixed by the court after all As aa the govern ment meat itself has allowed their highest officer to come in he thought the remarks of mr rawlins vindicated indicated over anxiety mr sheeks it is well known by lawyers and certainly by the attorney lor for the all parties should be represented mr peters decline declined to say whether he represents the gov eminent or not if he be does not represent the government then we are spending our time here for nothing the testimony adduced will be ille illegal a I 1 and improper As to our over anxiety we simply place this eting upon a legal proposition have the parties been notified 1 it 1 not why should we pro aeed the examiner thought that to a certain extent at least mr peters represented the government he did not see where the clients of sheeks raw lips would be at all ail injured neither could he see any good reason why the examination should be postponed if the gentlemen for the defense declined to cross examine that was their affair mr williams certainly should be allowed to introduce uch ucb evidence as tie he desired mr rawlins iti io regard to our williams and peters are the attorneys tor for the receiver and are therefore interested in seeing that his compensation is placed as high as possible that is what they are paid for an attorney acting for the government would certainly want it as low as possible if we are simply to play an examination and enact a farce we ought to know it it if the government is not represented there is a legal inconsistency about the whole affair it is certain that mr peters cant serve god and the devil at the same time the interests odthe of the receiver and the government are antagonistic he be mw appear as the representative ot of eithur either one or the other last evening he be examined the receiver with the view of fixing his bis compensation as high as possible now which side does he be appear on the examiner again insisted that mr ar WilU williams arns should be allowed to introduce such evidence as he desired upon this line of proceeding being adopted sheeks and rawlins withdrew from the examination fred H auerbach was called and testified I 1 have resided in salt lake twenty four years I 1 own and handle real estate as well as my general business I 1 have also some interests in live stock yes I 1 have been and am engaged in business of various kinds I 1 lam am familiar to a fair extent with the duties of the receiver in the case mentioned there is no doubt but that the post position n is such as to call for a great deal of business tact and energy it I 1 had bad not heard the sum of mentioned by the receiver 1 I should have said that 5 per cent would not have been too much I 1 would not care to handle it for any such sum there is no doubt but that other men could have been found who would have done it for less but I 1 think the charade character of the man who is ablerto give a bond of 2 3 should be taken into consideration if J I 1 have a collection eol lection to make I 1 am compelled to pay 10 per cent W H remington testified that 5 0 per would be a proper compensation fred simon testified I 1 have been merchandising in salt lake for several years past and have been engaged in other business lor for eighteen years or more I 1 have some idea of the business transacted by the receiver in that capacity and from what I 1 know I 1 should estimate that he was entitled to 2 ai per cent on the property turned over and 5 per cent on the amount recovered it the cliance chance to take hold of this matter tomorrow were off offered ered to rae me I 1 would not take it for less than the amounts named L goldberg Gold berc thou glit was little enough mr B R evans thought the sum asked was very 11 w J E dooley aard sard there were portions of the property on which a col lector would receive 10 per cent and other portions 5 percent per cent bethought he thought it had bad taken a good deal of tact and perseverance to ferret but the property ert M B thought 5 pv par cent on the total amount involved would be a fair compensation at this point an adjournments was taken till this afternoon THIS AFTERNOON at 1 not one of the parties had bad appeared but by a start was effected 0 P mason was the first witness he testified I 1 have been in m business in nevada and am now in business in utah in re regard 1 ard to the compensation of frank 9 H dyer as receiver in the suit of the government against the church I 1 think that mr dyers claim is low I 1 think i 5 per cent of the total would weald be a fair compensation I 1 have never beim been engaged on ed in the business of receiver alff bit I 1 have known something of that class I 1 have had to pay ten percent tf collections I 1 consider the extent of the bonds etc and I 1 think he should net above all expenses for deputies etc I 1 would noly no give live five per cent every time he asked for fortt tt I 1 think that such a sum every year might be unreasonable W S Ne mccornick Cornick the banker testified I 1 have examined Mr Dyers may of his labors as receiver in the a the church I 1 think the amount amount asked by him and consented to by the church attorneys 2 is a reasonable fee that is for a sum total tor for his bis whole receivership that is if it terminates ins reasonable binig siy my in two years from his appointment jacob moritz the brewer said he be had read the account of mr dyers labors as detailed in his testimony thought 2 a very amount for compensation I 1 think it is m orth a good deal more I 1 know the ourt not the bond placed the bond iso dhigh alrh 1 trunk there shurld becam be compensation P pensa ensa tion for the responsibility involved mi ali kerr te testified stifled I 1 have been engaged in banking mining and stock raising tor for 24 years taking into consideration mr dyers labors as receiver in this case I 1 would say sav a fair compensation would bo be about 5 per cent that would not be too muck on mat would be for services eer vicea up to 10 date dare this chis would give lye him aj net I 1 think he has longood don good cl detective work and his responsibility has been great ef a t this closed the testimony on the part of the receiver as to the compensation pensa pe tion he should receive a regard to the compensation of the attorneys for the receiver Arthur 41 brown te testified stifled I 1 am acquainted wita the usual compensation of attorneys there is no specified standard I 1 have been informed of the nature of the services of P L VV gilliams illiams Vi lliams and geo tj S peters as is attorneys for the receiver I 1 would say the compensation they fask k for each is not unreasonable their serl sen ices are worth that mi young would it not have been an easy task for one lawyer mr brown I 1 think one lawyer cou could lave tave done it mr young and his regular practice also mr brown I 1 think so mr young taen you would say tor one lawyer mr bro brown wn I 1 dont think pt for one would be any more than for or two I 1 think the combination of attorneys torness would enhance the value of ye ape work the work is better done with two heads that than one mr young then one lawyer would not t have do done ne as well mr brown he have done to further questions mr brown said that it if more than two lawyers had bad been employed he would have given them more than 1 I think these two attorneys put in half of their tinie time and that each is not too much if there had bad been but one I 1 should have said or I 1 know kaow of no lio case where with wita the amount involved and the service r rendered 1 en dered attorneys have ever charged V I 1 believe I 1 nave have heard ot of one case where a greater tee fee was charged in PL a case acre J B R mcbride testified stifled te I 1 think the services of the two attorneys for the receiver to each I 1 think that is moderate 1 I know of a case where as large a fee was paid in the brigham young bung estate case ofir firm received to myoung mr young I 1 would aw that they should have been paid a year each I 1 dont think hat extraordinary in this case mr williams announced that several other lawyers would be called as witnesses and a brief recess was taken ti it lithey they came in |