| Show THE CHURCH SUITS AGAIN IN COURT THE litigation over the property prop property eity of the late corporation of the church of jesus christ of latter day saints ama h been simplified greatly by the diem sal a at the instance of counsel for toe the government of the following ap P H dyer receiver vs david M stew art robert and church of at weber stake and city of ogden rp IP H dyer receiver etc vs VB R and LW shurtliff HW Law lawrence renol receiver vs VB james A eldridge et at al the lost last named involved the wt baft lake property known as the council clunen house corner and the others prope proper property rw tv formerly owned by the church la ogden including the tabernacle square tithing office grounds and the old stuart property these are now exempt from eme escheat neat the case now before afore the supreme court of the territory comes up on exceptions taken to the report of the master in chancery who after a loaff investigation decided in favor of the turning over of the personal I 1 rope property of the late corporation for the use uge ang benefit of the district schools it will be remembered that the supreme court of the territory decreed the personal property of the climb church had become es cheated to and the property of the united states JJ tah wait based on the assumption that the personal property of the hurch church had been used for and devoted among other things to the promulgation and maintenance of polygamy or plurality of wives we say the assumption because no such evidence had thou then been before the court the supreme court of the united states subsequently n dissented from this part of the decree and ordered that the personal property properly should be devoted to such crench charitable uses lawful in their charae ter as may most nearly correspond to which it was originally do de those ia h to 0 to be ascer ascertained tal lied by a master signed ff subject to the approval of in chancery aery the court contended that the it 1 Is erred now in hla his decision basister should have 9 ranted ted the that he be of the first presidency of petition to b have ave the property vested church the S trustees to be applied to the in isitt etheln of the church and of the be poor relief of houses of worship the sy trustees maintenance to report annually to the the sart account of tf e administration court sin and that the devotion of of the trust t to the district schools to is st the as property id the decision of the supreme and as repugnant to justice equity of our government gedius aasa rul ruled ofed that this application muster the T was res rep of f the presidency j supreme court bad already the because denied tile th e petition of george henry dinwoody james rowney john clark on behalf of and watson of the church claiming the st mi embers and said bald members were that they of said w the owners proper equitably g the court to decree h and to the in berty belongs property A said pral that the members of said church for the church now show counsel bilat sis but theirs i is a different claim calm and add scheme Sf tSaT 1013 et ai claimed the property ey foss of the church abao for orthe th members presidency of the church the regarded as a trust and k tt at it be g administer Dister it as an decided by admi that t t hey ev court CO for those charitable eme the earet eS supreme ret to t those home designed by the SS subject to the supervision and of ath donors the cour cours t further the supreme ruled that there was no ground court the application of the for time jiin san at that but that the rights of claimants will necessarily be members ass church h consideration in the final into taken son of the case this all 11 goes disposition B denial of the former to chow that the 11 no bar to the granting of the and scheme pren t pe petition met forth now that the it is further whole ground around of the action of congress 0 f the courts in rela rulings and the sasto tion to tivis ais property was that tile the contumacious za church was a organ its resources in attempting alon employing and thwart sub to oppose tem ntine vert the legislation of congress that it Is in ning the practice bract ce of poly but ut this is all changed Y church in relation by the action of the marriage and there to ib now plural to excuse to withhold Ith bold the ia reason or no property from the lawful uses to which it it was originally destined it is contended that there were law well as those said to be unlawful ful fol us uses as lawful to which it was alleged the property was applied and that to these the means ought to be devoted instead of to uses never contemplated by the donors anti and for the benefit of persons never intended to receive such benefits all this is set forth in the brief of hon F 8 richards attorney for the church and simplified amplified in his plea before the supreme court today a brief of which appears in our court report mr Rich richards aids further contended that under the changed con editions the church could not only now ask k for this use of the property under a trust but could claim it absolutely as their right but would not do so no WH W H dickson Dick soo esq also vf counsel for the Church showed that the power claimed to escheat in this way was never exercised under this government and could nut not be so 80 used even in monarchical england by a court of chancery ex capt under the sign eign manual the argument to la of great interest apart from the pecuniary interest which the church has in the property we cann cahnt it believe that in this free country the property of a religious body lawfully held will be wrested from it and appropriated to public uses and for persons persona who never contributed to it in any way the case cage is in able hands and will be watched closely by many people besides the latter day saints sainta |
