Show ZANE WITHDRAWS the territorial supreme court met on tuesday evening even evening january the the special pu purpose 0 of f the session being the settlement of the order of court relative to the charges made against receiver dyer and his hia attorneys by the intervention of certain school trustees represented by zane zane and R N baskin before this matter was taken up decisions were read and filed in the following cases the people vs wm win gillis grand larceny appeal from the first district opinion by judge sandford decision of court below affirmed the people vs wm win M robinson assault with intent to murder appeal from third district opinion by judge boreman judgment of court below reversed and case remanded for a new trial the interest in the proceedings centred in the order or of court relative to the receiver judge sandford inquired whether the order of reference had been AZ agreed upon judge powers replied that he had drawn the order of the court following the opinion of judge henderson 11 4 judge zane said the order of the court as drawn was not satisfactory to him from judge Borem borremans Bo remans anys opinion he understood that he would be allowed to introduce evidence to show that the claim of the receiver for was excessive exorbitant and unconscionable judge powers thought the order P was sufficient and that the examiner could pass upon the questions that might be asked judge zane I 1 want to know if we will be permitted to offer evidence to prove that this claim for is excessive exorbitant and unconscionable in that case we want to amend the order by inserting n after the words contained fasi in said a I 1 petition of said school trustees heretofore filed in this court 44 the following also testimony as to whether is an excessive exorbitant and unconscionable 7 charge for what said receiver has done and in proof of such issue bissu e any evidence may be offered of what the receiver has done or what he has not done that he should have done As to the time allowed I 1 wish to say that we cannot get in our evidence in four days one of our witnesses is in arizona and another is in idaho judge powers in handing this order up I 1 wish to say that my brother zane comes back to the contest over the amount of compensation to be allowed the receiver the order as handed up by judge powers Is as follows at the session of said court held at the city of salt lake on monday the day of january 1889 present ent the honorable elliot sandford chief justice and henry P henderson and jacob S boreman associate justices in the above entitled action a motion to amend the journal entry of U this court having been made and argued by the attorneys for the receiver celver in said cause as well as a motion by the attorneys of certain school trustees in a mat matter r pending bendid s M before this court an and heretofore 01 referred to robert harkness to take testimony concerti con concerning cerni ce certain n charges against frank H dyer 4 receiver and ge george orge S peters rs ana and par parley LL L W williams iw ams his attorneys the said d betl petitioners petition ti boners ers last aforesaid moving this court to punish the said dyer receiver as aforesaid as for contempt for his refusal to answer certain questions put in the course of the no j examination before said examiner and both of said matters having been fully argued by counsel and the 14 court having taken the same under advisement and being fully folly advised thereon it is iq ordered that the motion to amend the journal entry be and the same is hereby allowed and that the said robert harkness the examiner ar hereto heretofore fo re a appointed proceed in and take testimony as may be j produced by either party to this proceeding 0 respecting any and all allegations e 9 actions of fraud corruption discon miscon ducts duct or fraudulent claims and charges for compensation and unprofessional nal cond conduct c on the part of prank rank H dyer as receiver in this case and george S peters and parley L williams Wilham sas as his attorneys contained in said petition of said school trustees heretofore fl filed led in this court that the said robert harkness be and he is hereby clothed with all the powers and authority as an examiner of this court for the purposes of such examination that he be and be hereby is authorized and empowered to hear bear and determine all questions that may arise touching the admissibility albl lity of testimony with reference to said charges to the same extent as if the matter was being tried subject however to the right of either party to appeal to this court by way of exception to his rulings thereon that the parties hereto be autho authorized to take subpoenas from this court for witnesses to appear before said examiner that said examiner be and jae he is hereby authorized and empowered to employ officers either federal or territorial to attend him under his direct direction im and to fix their compensation to employ stenographers grap hers and to swear witnesses and it is further ordered that said examination on the part of the petitioners petition ers shall beg begin i n on thursday the day of january A D 1889 at 10 a m in su support P of said charges and that said petitioners petition ers have four days in which to produce duce their testimony in support barof of said charges as herein set porth forth that said respondents shall commence with their testimony to said charges on wednesday the day of january A D 1889 at 10 a m and that said respondents pon dents have four days in which to produce their testimony in reply to the said charges that said examiner devote monday and tuesday february 3rd ard and ath 1889 to the taking 1 of rebuttal testimony the tirrie time to be divided between the parties as the said examiner shall direct that the said examiner make report to this court of bf its actions and doings and of the testimony so taken and all the proceedings had before him on the ath day of february A D 1889 and that the hearing upon said report and the amount or of compensation to be allowed to the sala said receiver and to the said attorneys be set for the alth day of february next at 10 a in and it is further ordered that the said examiner may change the allotment of time of the affair of said d testimony as hereinbefore set forth AS he may deem just provided nothing t shall be done which shall inter tere lere with the filing of the said report on february ath next it is further ordered that the motion to punish the said receiver for contempt be denied and that he way ay go before the examiner and answer the questions heretofore ruled by the said examiner to be proper and which the said receiver presed sed to answer A discussion of the amendment ensued judge powers arguing that to allow it would be to make the examination a mere machine for the collection of scat scandal idal it implied that the court needed assistance from the outside to conduct its business and should not be allowed the court then adjourned until next morning at on wednesday jan 23 the court resumed and an order was made refusing to allow the amendment asked for by judge zane the case of john H linck vs salt lake city et al was argued and submitted and at its conclusion the question as to the investigation of the receivership was again called up p judge zane stated that he desired to be heard by the court for but a short time he then read the following document jn in the supreme court of utah territory united states of america vs va church of jesus christ of latter day saints et al to the supreme court of utah territory unto the court your petitioners petition ers the school trustees respectfully state the order of the court as now modified by the court has totally changed the nature of this proceeding A petition in chancery has been transformed into a criminal complaint we came here to contest the compensation of the receiver and of his solicitors and our petition was for that purpose under the former order of the court we could have done so under this order we cannot the court has now ruled that we cannot do the only thing that as school trustees we were interested te in doing or had the right to do we are completely excluded by this thia amended order from perform performing na the only duty in connection with the matter that our office places upon us but by this amended order the court would impose upon us the duty ot carrying on an investigation into the conduct of officers of the court while confining by their order the inquiry within narrow limits the court has decided that our particular inquiries of the receiver were proper but at the same time has ruled that all other questions of the same nature are improper the court has so changed the order that it is doubtful whether we could introduce testimony upon most of the allegations of the petition because legally they do not amount to charges of fraud corruption or professional fess ional misconduct we are out cut off from all inquiry y into anything except those par particular ular statements in the petition pemon which directly and in sufficient legal phrase charge fraud ia por corruption or professional miwon misconduct we can offer proof under this order only of a charge for compensation pensa tion that is both fraudulent and unconscionable we have no allegation aRe gation of such a charge in our petition and therefore we can offer no proof whatever on the subject of compensation had we understood when this reference was made that the investigation would be limited as it now is we would then have declined to pro aeed if it be the duty of the court to carefully scrutinize the conduct of its own receiver and if it would place this duty upon us then it should not limit the investigation as it now does to particular acts and to those alone but it in justice to us should extend the investigation to his entire conduct as receiver in assi assuming ming the duty of the court as we would were we to proceed under this order we would bo be so confined and hampered that we could not make our investigation complete while proceeding under the original order we were authorized to offer evidence as to everything that the receiver had done or failed to do in order that we might enable the court to fix the compensation for his services but this matter being excluded by the amended order only a small part of the receivers doings aolis can be investigated under these circumstances we believe it would be better that the court if it so desire should investigate the conduct of its officers for itself in a proceeding where the examination would not be cramped and nax narrowed rowed as it is under this order in that way the examination would be made thorough and more satish satisfactory ac tory to the court As long as we had some chance of benefiting the common schools of this territory we thought it our duty to proceed but we conceive it to be no part ot our duties as school i trustees to prosecute charges of fraud and corruption against officers of this court nor do we conceive it a part of our duties either as school trustees or as private citizens to incur the large expense of summoning witnesses aiom different counties in this territory and even from idaho and arizona merely to assist the court in scrutinizing particular acts of its receiver and in ill view of the facts above stated and the complete change in the ar character acter of the investigation made at this late day we must decline to assume the functions of a grand jury or to attempt to perform the duty of the court in investigating the conduct of its own officers all of which we respectfully submit RUDOLPH ALFF trustee eighth school district J P F ammy L U COLBATH twelfth district school T C baxley BAILEY chairman board trustees seventh school district judge powers said may ma y it please ease your honors if I 1 could be surprised at anything in th this Is extraordinary proceeding I 1 would be by the remarkable paper that has just been read judge sandford interrupting we do not care to hear any argument about it the clerk will receive the statement of these school trustees but it will not go on file he will simply receive it for further consideration it is a remarkable document and we desire to consider it carefully I 1 judge powers before any action is taken on the matter contained in the document I 1 desire simply to say a few words on judge judd interrupting the paper is of such an extraordinary extra kinary nature that we prefer to further consider it without argument by cou counsel n the request was taken under advisement vi and the court took a recess cess ten am jan 24 was the time set for the commencement of the second attempt to investigate the charges made macre against receiver dyer and his attorneys by the petition submitted on behalf of certain school trustees by zane zane at the hour named the territorial supreme court convened and as it was among the possibilities that action would be taken on the withdrawal of zane zane from the case this event was awaited the court however did not refer to the question so a short time afterward judge harkness announced that the investigation would proceed judge powers was present on behalf of mr dyer but there was no one to represent the petitioners petition ers it was of course understood that this meant that the latter did not intend to appear as indicated by the fact that no witnesses had been summoned ned and also by the notice of withdrawal submitted by judge zane yesterday J judge harkness went into the court room where judge zane was and returned in a few moments when he stated that he had received the amended order of the court with directions to proceed with the examination judge powers I 1 suggest that an officer notify judge zane judge harkness I 1 notified him personally yesterday and again this morning I 1 called his attention to it just now judge powers I 1 appear for the respondents in this matter since the last session this case has been before the supreme court cour which ruled that mr dyer should answer the questions asked on the former occasion he is now ready to do so 80 judge harkness Hark nesa let mr dyer take the stand there being no counsel present resent for the petitioners petition ers perhaps t had better act on december you refused to answer certain questions which were held to be proper the supreme court ruled that you should answer are you now ready to do so mr dyer 1 I am there was never any intention of contempt r wm will answer the questions judge harkness that Is ia all that is required I 1 will not ask the questions as the petitioners petition ers are not represented here having absented themselves that is sufficient for the report judge powers the examination for the petitioners petition ers was to commence today and last four days the respondents spon dents were to commence on ad wednesday F ao jan an I 1 take it that we will be compelled to proceed then I 1 ask that your honor will in the meantime report to the court the facts regarding the failure of the accusers to appear it seems to me to be a contempt of court judge harkness my idea is this on january the respondents are to answer to the charges made against them I 1 construe that to mean to reply to any evidence brought out and shall hold bold that no reply is necessary as no testimony is offered in support of the charges 1 shall close the examination and report to the court jud judge ja powers the examination cannot cannone close close till the date set by the court judge harkness I 1 shall follow the order of the court that is my text judge powers these accusers have filed a paper withdrawing from the case that document Is ia now before the court I 1 apprehend that the court will want this investigation to go on it is a prejudice against our side to let it stand as it is I 1 propose to aid the court all I 1 can in having these charges fully investigated judge harkness I 1 see nothing in the |