The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1888-12-09
truth to be, that the amount SO re-
ceived in said compromise was


and consideration under the circum-
stances for the settlement so made; and
deny that the difference alleged is $175.-
OOO.OO or any sum whatever; or that
sad transac lion should be disapproYed;
and deny that the loss alleged to the
fund in this action, by reason of the
SAID transactions, is $175 100000 or any
sation be allowed to said receiver it
should not exceed the sum of S., 0OO. 90.
And respondents deny that the losses
claimed by the alleged action of the re-
ceiYer in the compromise upon the real
estate mentioned were S135, 10000 or
any sum, or that any loss occurred to
the fund, or to the school fund on &C
count of any of said transactions.
And these respondents deny that
they, or either of them, claim or pre-
tend that the common schools of this
Territory have no beneficial interest in
the money so received by said receiver,
by said compromise, or that they or
either of them have made any claim
herein on the subject of any kind, but
they now deny that the said petitioners
have any interest which entities them
to be made parties to this action, on
any pretense of protecting said funds
or any other pretens0; that the court
is able and willing to preserve and pro-
tect funds in it's hands without the
advice or assistance of any officious in
reference, such as is disclosed in
the petition; and deny that the said
commissioner of schools of this Teri
tory is employed against the interests
of said schools in any way whilst act
ing as the legal adviser of said receiver.
That each and every of the allega-
tions, by statement, inuendo, imputa-
ton or argument that the said Williams
and the said Peters are acting in any
sense adverse to the interest of said
schools. or in violation of their duties
to the United States or to the Territory
are false, irrelevant, groundless, imper-
tinent and scandalous.
And these respondents having an
swered all the matter relevant to the
investigation ordered by the Court
upon this petition, for fuller and
more complete showing allege:
That pending the tnal decree in this
action and after the decision upon the
demurrer flied by the defendants herein,
the said Dyer was by this Court ap-
pointed as receiver of all the property
claimed in the bill by the plaintiff, and
was
DIRECTED AND AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT
to reduce the same into possession and
hold it subject to the order of the
Court. That said receiver was required
to execute bond FOR the faithful per-
Torrance OF his duties in the sum of
two hundred and fifty thousand dollars,
and that he complied with said require
ment and executed such bond. That
Notwithstanding it was believed that
the said defendants had large amount
of property, both real and personal sub
iect to the claim made by the plaintiff
in this action, when the receiver under
took to possess himself of the same, he
found himself confronted by most per :
sistent and constant opposition, and by
every means of resistance which the
law permitted. In almost all instances
the real estate had been con-
veyed by parties who it was believed
had been holding the property in trust
to other parties, without disclosing in
any of the conVeyances any Of such
trusts, the existing grantees being ap-
parently bona fde holders for value,
AID putting upon said receiver the bur-
den of taDlishing by affirmative proof,
the rights he was asserting. The par
ties were adverse to said receiver, the
proofs, if obtainable under any amount
of in Yestigation, were to be drawn from
such hostile sources, and an entire COM
munity bound together by religious as
sociatlons and obligations, were aiding
in every form which resistance could
Al IL - 3 b 6AEA Ill
ceedings in favor of the plaintiff. Not
pie Block, Tithing Yard, Gardo House
and grounds, or an article of personal
pror erty, of any considerable value,
was voluntarily surrendered to the re-
ceiver. At the threshold of his duties it
became necessary to employ legal ad-
vice and assistance, and to prepare to
meet the
OBSTINATE RESISTANCE AND DISTINCTIONS
which surrounded the receiver in the
performance of his duties. He selected
for such advisers and solicitors named
in the petition, and said Dyer AYERS that
the said Peters, respondent, was so
S0lGCL0u dS Ou6, LUZ Guo IcdSOu LGdL udf-
ing been associated by the Attorney
General OF the United States in the
preparation of the suit, and having OBJ
tanned by his Investigation of the sub
iect, much knowledge which was not
possessed by any other attorney at the
time, which would be of service to assist
the receiver in the performance of his
duties. And in order that there might
be no question of the improperly of 8
being IN the service of the said receiver,
whilst at the same time, he in part rep
resented the pla ntiff in the principal &C.
ton, said receiver submitted to the At
torney- General of the United States
the question of his employment in
said receivers behalf, and the said
receiver and the said attorney, had the
full and explicit sanction and approval
of said Attorney General as to the said
employment. Said Dyer AYERS that
said Attorney Williams was employed
for reasons of like character; LIE was
an attorney of long practice in the
courts of the Territory, was familiar
with the people, had special knowledge
of many matters upon which his SER
vices were required, was informed of
the methods which were likely to be