Salt Lake evening Democrat. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1885-1887, 1886-03-19
SUIT AGAINST AUDITOR CLAYTON
Arthur Pratt Wants the office, or
Will Know the Reason Why.

appointments. lHo IOllOWllS complaint
II which opens the contest proper, was file
n in the Third District Court this after
e noon, and very clearly explains tn
position taken by the appointees. /
Territorial statute of 1884 makes adequat
provision for just such procedure, ant
fixes a penalty of $1,000 as punishment
for an officer refusing to deliver over hi
office at the application of his successor
T The suit is brought by the Territory, a.
,, 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 VIM II. Dickson, United
States District Attorney for said Terri.
tory, plaintiff, VS.. Nephi W. Clayton, de-
PENDANT.
The People of the Territory of Utah, by
William II. Dickson, United States Dis
trict Attorney for said Territory, COM
plains of the said defendant and alleges
that heretofore, to-wit: in the year a..
ID. 1879, the said defendant, Nephi w.
Clayton, did usurp and intrude into the
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 there
for.
And the said plaintiff by the said Dis
trlct Attorney further complains and al
hot fNf0 -
day OF January, AID. 1886, and during
the session of the twenty-seventh Legis-
lative Assembly of said Territory, Eli Fl.
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 re-
quested its advice and consent
to the appointment of said Pratt to the
said office. That the said Council arbi-
trarilyy, and without lawful right or ex-
cuse, failed, neglected and refused to
take any action whatever upon said NOM
ination so presented. That the said ses-
sion of the said Legislative Assembly
and Council expired on the 18th dav OF !
March, A. d. 1886, and the same finally
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 Legis-
latlve Assembly, nominated and
presented to said Council the
name of the person to fill the said Office
OF Auditor OF Public Accounts, but tie
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 each and every
thereof, that the said defendant
was then unlawfully holding and exer-
cising the functions of said office: and as
plaintiff IS informed and believes and =.
upon his information and belief alleges
me tact to be that such refusal on the ,
part of said Legislative Council was for !
ne purpose and with the intention and d,
ieslgn OF unlawfully aiding and abetting .
he said defendant in his said usurpation =
d, intrusion into and unlawful exercise :
II the duties of said Office.
That heretofore, to wit; on the 18th +
lay OF March, 1886, and after the final :,
expiration and adjournment of said
legislature Assembly and Council, the "
aid Eli II. Murray, as Governor as afore- y
aid, duly appointed the said Arthur :, "
RAFT to be Auditor of Public Accounts "
Or said Territory. That therefore, to ~
Mt; onthe 10th day of March, 1885, the e. e.
aid Arthur Pratt duly qualified by tax >, 70
lg the oath of Office and executing +
official bond, with sufficient -
aretles as required by law, and there al
tier, to,wIt on the 18th day of March a a,
[oresald, he was duly commissioned as -;
lch officer. That after being so ap- =,
olnted and commissioned, and having -,
qualified as such officer as aforesaid. q" q,
he said Arthur Pratt on said last-named q,
ny duly demanded of said defendant ~ -,
lat he surrender to him the said Office W
ID the insignia thereof, which demand T.
as then and there refused bv the said ~ -,
sfendant WI
wherefore the said plaintiff demands ~ ~
dgment that the said defendant is not ~
TITLED to the said office, and that he he f. r.
sted therefrom; that the said Arthnr ~ ~
att is entitled to said office, and that o W.
De put into possession thereof, to- ar
tner with the books, safe and all and col
lguiar the insignia thereto belonging, az az
d that the said defendant paw the costs 40
rein. ~ N','' Cd
vo
Ihe complaint in the case of Bolivar as
'berts, the appointee for Territorial ; :e,
easurer, was also placed in the hands bic
CLERK Zane this afternoon, and embod- de
much the same substance as con- is
ned IN the above. Mr.. Roberts has Ra
hled his bond yet, but the suit can 90 wit
cad just as we'll without such action. ho,
-, evt