The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1888-12-09
II Is ALL WRONG.
The Answer Made by
the Receiver
AND HTS ATTOpNEVS,
AND HIS ATTORNEYS.
A Denial of Every Allegation
and InuendO.
ALL ACTIONS ABOVE BOARD.
The Petitioners Charges are "False
Irrelevant, Groundless, Imper.
tinens and Scandalous."

Below is the answer of Receiver
Dyer and his attorneys, Messrs. Will
terday:
Now come the parties, last above
mentioned, and availing themselves o.
the order of this court made herein, on
the 28th day of November, 1888, allow
ing them to file their answer respectively
| to the charges made in the said petit
ton, and answering said petition, admit
that the said receiver is in the possess
sion of the real estate described, which
possession was taken in the course of
his duties as receiver in said action,
and is held in that character only, and
| that it is held subject to the disposition
CT the samo by this court under the law
providing for this action.
| These respondents deny that the re-
ceiver soon after he came into the pos
session of said real estate aforesaid, or
at any time, the said real estate or any
portion thereof, was or is now rented
| by said receiver to the agents of said
church without authority of this court,
or otherwise, to be used as tithing
yard, or that it is rented to
any person for such use; and they
further deny that the use of any
such real estate to whom the same has
been rented for thepurpose of tithing
yard is
CONTRARY TO THE TRUE INTENT
or spirit of the laws of Congress as al
legged, or that in renting said real estate
as the receiver has in fact done to GER
| tain persons, said receiver in any man
ner violated his duty. And said receiver
alleges that having received the posses
sion OF said property, a portion of which
he could make productive by leasing the
same at a fair rent, and finding certain
responsible persons ready and willing to
lease the same, for the time being, he
did so, in the interest, as he is advised,
of all parties to the action. That they
were not leased or rented for any parti-
cular purpose except on the part of the
receiver to procure the best rental pos
sible, and that he has had no other con-
troll over them since, except to collect
said rents; and he denies that said real
estate or any portion thereof so rented,
is used for any improper or unlawful
purpose whatever.
These respondents further state. that
as to the paragraph in the said petition,
relating to parts of lots two (2l and seven
| ca, in block eighty-eight 1887, plat "a, )"
therein described; lot eight (S), block
seventy-siX (76), in said plat; and por-
ton of lot five (5), blockseventy five (75),
in said plat therein described, and
which it is alleged had, after the first
day of July. 1852, been obtsined and
held by the said church in violation oft.
said act of Congress, these respondents
aver, that whether the same had been
so obtained or held was q contrvverted
question between the said receiver and
the said defendants, and was the subject
of the litigation referred to and set cut
IN said Petition and these respondents
further allege that the legal title of the
said described pieces of property was
not in the said church at the time the
said suits were brought, or at the date
of Congress of March Sd, 1887, or
at any other time, with the exception of
said lot eight (8) in block seventy six
(76), which was previous to the - day
of April, 1873, in the trustee of trust for
said church corporation.
That these respondents, acting as the
receiver aforesaid and solicitors for the
receiver, believing from certain evil
dence which had come to their notice
that said corporation was the true
owner of some, or all of the said prem
ises,
HELD FOR 1T BY SECRET TRUST,
which said receiver might by suit be
able to establish, and with view of re-
covering if possible the same, or some
portion thereof, did, about the time al
legged, institute the actions specified in
the petition, in the Third District
Court, against the several parties, de-
PENDANTS thereto, and alleged the facts
ground of recovery subs tantially as
stated in SAID petition, and asked re-
lief therein that the conveyances to said
defendants be decreed to be invalid and
that said receiver have the possession
thereof, and respondents further admit
that at the time allegedin said petition.
the said receiver compromised said
suits on the terms stated in the petit
ton, and relinquished the claim of the
plaintiff in the said action, in cons dera
ton of the payment of the sum alleged;
but they deny that it was thereby ad-
mitted that the land had been obtained
by the late corporation, or that 1T was
| then held by the QeIenQanCS IN SAID &C
tons, for the late corporation, tbs de-
PENDANT in this action, in violation OF
the said act of Congress, or that the
plaintiff in this action was entitled to
recover it if said acts were valid, or at
all. or that it was in effect or otherwise
admitted that the money received in
said compromise should be substituted
for said land, or that by said compro-
mise any admission was made other
than that the parties thereto desired to
maze settlement, in order to avoid
the litigation, and. deny that the order
OF this court authorizing the said
receiver to make said compromise of
said suits was made by or through the
representations and estimates in any
petition therefor by the said receiver
and his solicitors; that the said sums
received
WERE THE VALUES OF SAID PROPERTIES,
and deny that any estimates of