The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1888-11-29

lieu OF S2lQ tracts OF land described in
said complaint, except q portion of lot
S in block rs, that said Receiver took
the sum OF SS4 .666 10, or a note there
for, to stand in the place Thereof and to
be treated and applied as the land
should have been treated and applied:
that the solicitors of said cor
pOration were the ATTORNEYS
of said defendants, except one, in said
compromises, and thereby admitted
that the land had been obtained by the
late corporation and was then held by
the defendants for the late corpora
tiOn in violation of said acts of Con-
gress, and that the plaintiff was en-
titled to recover if said acts were valid,
and in effect admitted that the money
received should be substituted for said
lands, and should be applied for the
benefit of said common schools; that
the order of this court authoriz 'ng the
said Receiver to compromise said suits
was made by the court, as your pc
titioners are informed and believe,
solely upon the recommendations and
representations of the Receiver and
his solicitors, who stated to the court
that the estimates in the petition for
authority to compromise were the
actual and reasonable values of said
tracts under the circumstances, and
that said compromises were fair and
reasonable; your petitioners charge,
however, that said tracts of land were
worth 1925 200 and that 1874, 1856 10 was
grossly inadequate valuation of said
property; that no evidence was heard
by the court In regard to said COM
promises, and your petitioners believe
that the court was misled by the said
representations and recommendations
Of the Receiver and his solicitors; that
the said order OF the court required
the Receiver to report said compro-
misses to the court for its approval
and that such report has not been
made.
Your petitioners further rep
resent that said compromises
they are allowed to stand, then the
money or notes or other evidences of
Indebtedness, or the proceeds thereof,
taken for and in lieu of said lard, may
be applied as the land and the pro-
ceeds thereof were required to be ap-
piled by said section 10, to the use and
benefit of the common schools of this
Territory; that the right or the COM
mon schools to the land attached to and
followed the money or other property
into which the land was converted,
until it is applied to the use and ben
eft OF the common scEo )ls; that it
was not in the power of the Receiver
and the late corporation, by COM
promise or otherwise, to deprive the
common schools of the use and bene-
fit of the proceeds of lands obtained or
held in violation of the said Act of July
1st, 1862; that the United States, under
the law, have no interest in said land
or in its proceeds. and the officers of
the government must keep their hands
off, except to aid in its application as
provided by law. to the use and bene-
fit of the said common schools.
Your petitioners further represent
that the said Receiver now has in his
possession the sum of SIS 900, received
in compromise for cattle and other
property; that said property, as your
petitioners are informed and believe,
was worth at the time, S250,000; that
it was estimated by the parties to this
suit, in stipulation of facts made
October 10Th, 1887, to be worth the
sum Of $26S, 9S2.39; AID that this trans
action between the Receiver and the
defendant corporation was made with
out authority from this court.
That since the appointment of said
Receiver he has obtained possession
of 80 900 sheep, the property of the de-
PENDANT corporation; and after receiv-
ing the same he rented them without
any authority from this court and
without public notice, to one w. L.
Pickard, a surety upon said Receivers
bond, at the rate of twenty cents per
head per anDum, when the customary
price was from forty to fifty cents per
head, and that in such renting of said
sheep, the fund sustained a loss OF
about s., 900.
Y-ur petitioners further represent
that they are informed and believe
that there is property to a large
amount, of which said Receiver has
not taken possession, that was owned
by said defendant corporation and was
in the possession of its agents, or of
others for said corporation, after said
Receiver qualified; and that he could
have taken or obtained possession of
said property by the use of reasonable
diligence as Receiver, and that his
failure to do so was from want of at
tention to his duties as Receiver or
from wilful negligence, or through
combination with agents of the late
corporation.
Your petitioners represent further
that said Receiver, after he entered
upon MS duties as Such, employed one
P. L. Williams, who was and is Terri
torial Commissioner of Schools, and
one Geo. S. Peters, who was and is the
attorney for the United States in this
Territory, as his attorneys and solicit
tors; that the said Receiver was at the
time of his appointment, and is now,
United States Marshal for said Terri
tory; that as Receiver he presented
claim for allowance to him for clerk
hire, compensation to solicitors,
agents, and employees, for Office rent,
stationery, and other expenses
amounting to the sum lof $7,S65.53;
that not having yet been made parties
to this proceeding or granted leave to
appeal herein, your petitioners have
not examined the said report of ex-
penses of the Receiver sufficiently to
point out objections thereto; that such
an examination would involve a
scrutiny of vouchers and probably an
examination Of witnesses; but that if
permitted by the court to do so, your
petitioners, as they are informed and
believe, can point out Wellfounded
objections to the SAID account.
That the said Receiver also pre-
Sented a claim for allowance to him