OCR Text |
Show SUIT AGAINST AUDITOR CLAYTON Arthur Pratt Wants the Office, or Will Know the Reason Why. Mr. Arthur Pratt, the Governor's appointee ap-pointee for Territorial Auditor, is losing no time in his efforts to make good his appointment. The following complaint, which opens the contest proper, was filed in the Third District Court this after-, noon, and very clearly explains the position taken by the appointees. A Territorial statute of 18S4 makes adequate provision for j'ust such procedure, and fixes a penalty of $5,000 as punishment for an officer refusing to deliver over his office at the application of his successor. Thf Rlllf. 1Q hrnnnrllf ktr tUa Tarr-llrrT no will be seen, and precludes appeal from the local courts. In the District Court of the Third Judicial District of Utah Territory, County of Salt Lake: The People of the Territory of Utah on the relation of Wm. H. Dickson, United States District Attorney for said Territory, Terri-tory, plaintiff, vs. Nephi W. Clayton, de-I de-I fendant. The People of the Territory of Utah, by William H. Dickson, United States District Dis-trict Attorney for said Territory, complains com-plains of the said defendant and alleges that heretofore, to-wit : in the year A. D. 1879, the said defendant, Nephi W. Clayton, did usurp and intrude into th office of Auditor of Public Accounts, in and for the said Territory of Utah, and ever since that time he" has, and does still, hold and exercise the functions of said office without authority of law therefor. there-for. . And the said plaintiff by the said District Dis-trict Attorney further complains and alleges al-leges that heretofore, to-wit: on the 25th day of January, A.D. 1886, and during the session of the twenty-seventh Legislative Legis-lative Assembly of said Territory, Eli H. Murray,- Governor of said Territory, duly nominated Arthur Pratt to be Auditor of Public Accounts for said Territory, and did then and there present the name of the said Arthur Pratt to the Legislative Council of said Territory while the same was in session, and requested re-quested its advice and consent to the appointment of said Pratt to the said ooice. That the said Council arbitrarily, arbi-trarily, and without lawful right or excuse, ex-cuse, failed, neglected and refused to take any action whatever upon said nomination nom-ination so presented. That the said session ses-sion of the said Legislative Assembly and Council expired on the 12th day of March, A. D. 1886, and the same finallv adjourned on that day without having taken any action whatever upon said nomination, and leaving the said office without any lawful incumbent. Plaintiff further alleges that the Governor of said Territory, at the Twenty-fifth and Twenty-sixth sessions of said Legislative Legis-lative Assembly,- nominated and presented to said Council the name of the person to fill the said office of Auditor of Public Accounts, but the said Council, at each of the said sessions, failed and refused to take any action thereon. That the refusal of the said Council to take action at its said several sessions upon said nominations, was with the full knowledge and information of the said Council, and eanh and member thereof, that the said defendant was then unlawfully holding and exercising exer-cising the functions of said office ; and as plaintiff is informed and believes and upon his information and belief alleges the fact to be that such refusal on the part of said Legislative Council was for the purpose and with the intention and design of unlawfully aiding and abetting the said defendant in his said usurpation of, intrusion into and unlawful exercise of the duties of said office. That heretofore, to wit; on the 13th day of March, 1886, and after the final expiration and adjournment of said Legislature Assembly and Council, the said Eli H. Murray, as Governor as aforesaid, afore-said, duly appointed the said Arthur Pratt to be Auditor of Public Accounts for said Territory.' That therefore, to wit; on the 16th day of March, 1886, the saia Annur rratt duly qualified by taking tak-ing the oath of office and executing I an official bond, with sufficient sureties as required by law, and thereafter, there-after, to-wit: on the 17th day of March aforesaid, he was duly commissioned as such officer. That after being so appointed ap-pointed and commissioned, and havin so qualified as such officer as aforesaid! the said Arthur Pratt on said last-named day duly demanded of said defendant that he surrender to him the said office and the insignia thereof, which demand was then and there refused by the said defendant. Wherefore the said plaintiff demands judgment that the said defendant is not entitled to the said office, and that he be ousted therefrom; that the said Arthur Iratt is entitled to said office, and that he be put into possession thereof, to-gether to-gether with the honVa ania anA n j singular the insignia thereto belonging, and that the said defendant pav the costs herein. i- - The complaint in the case of Bolivar Roberts, the appointee for Territorial Treasurer, was also placed in the hands pi uierk Zane this afternoon, and embodies embod-ies much the same substance as con- Vnf -ht ab,ove- Mr- Roberts has not filed his bond yet, but the suit can go ahead just as well without such action |