The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1888-11-15

worth from 500 to $3.50 per acre
S1O0 900 or upwards in all. Since my
appointment as receiver until the
present time, the Office has claimed
the greater part of my attention-and
l have made one visit TO Washington,
where / consulted with the Attorney
General on the matter. The aggregate
value of the properties now held by me
is about SOP, COO. Dedueting $145 900
worth of property which was turned over
to me, there is a balance OF 1857 900
which was.obtained through nay efforts
assisted, of course, by my attorneys,
whose advice l have always followed
in the matter. l forgot to state that
the Salt Lake Theatre was also one of
properties owned by the church and,
this stock had been transferred to GER
tain parties, some of it on notes due
in March next. These notes are gilt
edged and can be collected when due.
Farley l.. Williams was my principal
attorney in the case, but finding there
was a great deal more business than
he could attend to, also employed
George s Peters. It is due Mr.. Peters
to say that when 1 first approached
him, he said he could not act with out
the consent of the Attorney Gen
eral, Mr. Peters being District At
torney here. wrote the Attorney
General, asking if there was any reason
why Mr.. Peters could not act. and re-
ceived reply that l might employ him.
Mr.. Peters then accepted the offer
made him. Later on, l also employed
Marshall g. Royle to bring the suits in
the matter of the Wells corner real
estate. and when the money was paid
over TO me for this property, they rem
dered ME bill Tor $3.50, which paid.
I'also employed one or two other attor.
neys in small matters. | felt always
that the case was very important one,
and as it was new thing, never made
a move that l did not go to my attor-
neys for advice, always being sure that
we agreed before L did anything. These
consultations were very frequent-not
every day, but at least once week. l
have had them employed almost
continually, as / look at it,
to look after my interests
as receiver. 1t having come to my
knowled that there was considerable
opposition in Salt Lake to the en-
ployment of Mr.. Peters, 1 again
called upon the Attorney-Gsneral and
stated the case to him. His reply was:
you did exactly right, Mr.. Dyer, in
employing Mr.. Peters"
P. L. WILLIAMS.
The examination o. this witness was
conducted by Mr.. Peters. He testified
that he was employed by the receiver
as his attorney soon after he received
the appointment, and gave IN eGtsnSo,
his work in the Church cases since
that time. The work done was equally
shared by witness and Mr.. Peters. Of
the bill of Marshall & Royle for ser
vices in the Wells corner suit, Mr..
Williams thought $3.50 was a very
reasonable fgure-that $1,000 would
not have been too much. Asked con-
corning what amount was fairly due
to the counsel of the Receiver, Mr..
Williams tn ought $4,000 each, or $50 =
600 in all was about the right thing.
He thought it less figure than would
be demanded by attorneys had they
done similar work for private parties
and were allowed to Tx their own fees.
Ten thousand dollars each was very
moderate compensation.
At this point the hearing was ad-
journed till this morning at 80.