| Show THE CHURCH CASE motion calling in question the Yali ditl of a certain procedure an interesting argument took place before judge ludge zane yesterday in the church caco case detract ct attorney varlan varian appeared for the government and J L rawlins Itaw lins for the church involving g the validity of certain proceedings in connection with the es cheating of the church property the argument was on the following motion in the D district a 1 brict court of the third judicial of he the territory of 0 utah salt lake county in the matter ot of proceeding proceedings for the forfeiture ol 01 certain real estate formerly held and owned bv the corporation of the church of jeans lestis chr annat corra t oi of latter day saints take notice that wo we appear in this action tor for francis armstrong angus cannon jesse W fox jr and the church of jesua jesus christ of latter day saints for or the purpose of this motion only and no other pur and upon a the information filed EMD ea am aaby orein n by A JI garland Garlan dp attorney general of 0 the united st states ates and george 8 peters attorney of the united states for the territory 0 of utah the monition and attachment filed aaela herein directed to the marshal roa rebal 0 of the district of utah and the return of frank 11 dyer U B S marshal and all the proceedings edinga of record in said matter we ball shall in move ove the court at the I 1 federal court room in lit salt t lake city la territory of f utah on the day of Decem december bein I 1 1833 S at tha the 9 opening e ing of court on tbt I 1 di day ar or as op soon oo 00 n thereafter CM cou coun el can be beard board for an 0 order that thorald the said monition and attachment tac tach ment the alleged service thereof an and 4 all 1 I 1 di age thereon bo be get sei aside and that the whole of said ding including bald said information be dismissed with costs upon the follow following in grounds 1 T this hk court has as no jurisdiction of the subject matter matte of said proceedings I 1 nor of the property pr 0 or any part thereof described 1 in unsaid said information nor the parties whose interests right or title of in or to said property property are sought to be affected for forfeited 4 cited or es cheated 2 there are no parties to or named in said proceedings or any of them either plaintiffs or defendants and said proceedings edinga being directly against property in rem rera is contrary to law a and nd the practice of this court and wholly unauthorized 3 no complaint has been filed in said proceeding naming the proper or any party part eleber plaintiff or defendant stating any cause of action therein whatever in la conformity with law 4 no summons has been issued in 8 eaid id proceeding directed to any officer for service eer rice nor has any service been made of any summons monition attachment tach ment or other process upon any person or party whose interest in said pro property is sought to be affected by tat eaid proceeding 6 5 said proceedings and e eich ich and every part thereof are irregular nod without warrant or authority of law and contrary to the practice of this court 6 this court has no jurisdiction of said real estate for that the same is in the carmody of 0 the supreme court of said territory through its receiver and no lawful attachment and seizure thereof has been or can be made under or by virtue of any process of this court and said pretended attachment is irregular and void 7 said process of monition and attachment tach ment was not directed to any officer known to the law but to the manhal marshal of the district court of utah and the pretended service thereof made by frank 11 II dyer united states marshal who is and was at the time pretended service the receiver appointed by and required to bold hold said property tor for said supreme coort court of utah to geor georga 0 8 peters attorney for the unites united states for the territory of utah SHEEKS A RAWLINS attorneys at the conclusion of the arguments judge zane took tho matter atter under advisement |
