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.


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 1884 makes adequate
provision for just such procedure, and
fixes penalty OF $1,000 as punishment
for an officer refusing to deliver over his
Office at the application OF his successor
The suit is brought by the Territory, as
will be seen, and precludes appeal from
the local courts.
In The District Court of the TirdJudicial
District Of Utah Territory, County of
SAT- 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.
d. 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
trict Attorney further complains and al
leges that heretofore, to-wit: on the 25th
day OF January, AID. 1856, and during
the session of the twenty-seventh Legis-
lativc Assembly of said Territory, Eli II.
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-
trarily, and without lawful right or ex-
cuse, failed, neglected and refused to
nation so presented. That the said ses-
sion OF the said Legislative Assembly
and Council expired on the 18th day Of
March, A. ID. 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-ffth and
Twenty-sixth sessions OF said 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 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
member 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
the fact to be that such refusal on the
part Of said Legislative Council was fol-
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 18th
day OF March, 1886, and after the final
expiration and adjournment OF said
Legislature Assembly and Council, the
said Eli II. Murray, as Governor rs afore
said, duly appointed the said Arthur
Pratt to be Auditor OF Public Accounts
for said Territory. That therefore, tc
wit; on the 10th day OF March, 1886, the
said Arthur Pratt duly qualified by tax
, ing the oath OF office and executing
' an official bond, with suiiicien
: sureties as required by law, and there
after, to.wt: on the 18th day OF Marcel
aforesaid, he was duly commissioned a:
such officer That after being so ap
pointed and commissioned, and having
so qualified rs such officer as aforesaid
, the said Arthur Pratt on said last-namec
> day duly demanded Of said defendan
that he surrender to him the said onic,
:, and the insignia thereof, which demand
was then and there refused by the sale
defendant
? Wherefore the said plaintiff demand
judgment that the said defendant is no
entitled to the said office, and that he b,
! ousted therefrom; that the said Arthu
, Pratt is entitled to said office, and tina
!, he be put into possession thereof, to
! gether with the books, safe and all an,
:, singular the insignia thereto belonging
! and that the said defendant pay the cost
= herein.
The complaint in the case OF BOLIVIA
: Roberts, the appointee for Territorial
/ Treasurer, was also placed in the hand
OF Clerk Zane this afternoon, and cmbod
4 les much the same substance as con
r tanned in the above. Mr.. Roberts ha
: not filed his bond yet, but the suit can g
ahead Just rs well without such action.