The daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1873-1877, 1876-05-18
interest of the road and in the interest of
his principals. ga.

bNIAlD lAAEo.
The taxes, of course, I presume, are not
paid, These taxes of 1878 have not been
paid. That, however, was a regular ex-
penditure or something that grew up out
OF the possession and ownership of the
property, which, of course, has to be met,
and tor which MIR. Osterberg is not per-
sonally responsible, but it is a charge upon
the property itself
CAN'T SEE ANYTHING WRONG.
On the whole l cannot see anything in
the nature Of the accounts of Mr.. Osterberg
or in the conduct of the road on his part
which ought to interfere with the action
of the court in completing the purpose
Perhaps it is not necessary that the court
should formally approve OF all the items OF
this report The only object there was in
referring it to the master was to see
whether Mr. Osterberg had complied sub
stantially with the orders of the court
while he had possession Of the property, so
that l see nothing to prevent US pro-
ceeding to what l suppose is the other
question in the case, and | presume it is
desired to raise it now, and that is whether
or not Mr.. Osterberg shall be clothed with
the apparent ownership of this property,
by the execution of deed by the master.
SHALL OsTERBERG HAVE DEED?
Now, in relation to that, | do not wish to
foreclose the parties Directing to it from
making any proper objections that they
can make. | have suggested, during the
progress OF the cause, whether it was
competent for them to do it, and to ask
the court IN summary way to displace
Mr.. Osterberg; whether that can be
done in this summary way. With my i'm
pressions,l would like to see some authority
upon the subject. He has paid for the
property, and he has 10 that respect COM
piled with the orders of the court Now
admit and suppose it to be true that while
he has had possession of the property he
has not acted as a faithful agent or trustee
--concede that to be so and concede that
you can establish it; query, Can the court
10 that way in this summary manner dis
place him and substitute some one, or join
some one else in the execution OF the
trust? Hasn't he the right to be heard in
a regular way by proper Affirmative pro-
ceeding on the part OF some one CON-
| planning that he has violated his trust,
where he would have the opportunity of
cross-examining witnesses, asking for the
action of the court, and if the court de-
cided enormously, to appeal to higher
tribunal? Whether a man has violated a
trust or not is something ordinarily for
which he is of course amneable on the
part OF the cestui que trust to answer in a
court of equity, but can he be com
PEELED to answer in this way? We can
only meet the views of the counsel who are
Directing to the confirmation OF the sale, and
the order of the court for a deed-we can
only meet them in a summary way, that
is upon motion or as they desire, upon an
original bill fled | don't know very well
how, if there were any error committed by
the court that Mr.. Osterberg could obtain
relief by appealing to higher court,
whereas, it there was regular bill, as
there is, against him-if there is a regular
bill and that proceeds in the usual way
upon answer, proofs and decree, why of
course he has his remedy.
WANTS TO BE SATISFIED.
| will Only suggest, this to the counsel
| should like to be satisfied. If they ask
for the intcrposition Of the court, as |
understand they intend to do so, | should
like to have some authorizes shown to the
court justifying its action in this case. Il
seems it is a case of complaint made
against an agent while he is in possession
Of property which he has purchased, be
fore the purchase is completed and before
the deed is given to him, and while the
court might be said to have certain con
troll over it; it is a complaint made foi
redress In summary way. Can that bC
given? Now, if you desire to go on with it.
Continued on third page)