The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1888-12-09

fiction, and that at no time have
either the petitioners, or anyone in
their behalf or interest, given him any
aid. information or assistance in the
difficult and varied duties of his posi-
ton; nor do these respondents believe
that the said petitioners had, or have
any information as to the other
property referred to in said pc
tltion, or that could aid the
receiver in the just discharge of his
duty: and they further aver that if the
said petitioners, or any one of them,
has any information or belief, that they
have carefully withheld the same from
the receiver ands his attorneys, and
that il any such information can be
furnished the receiver or his attorneys,
they are anxious to receive the same,
and are ready and willing to commence
any form of action or proceeding that
is appropriate
FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECOVERING
the possession of such property or its
value.
Your respondents admit that after
the said receiver entered upon his
duties as such, he retained Farley L.
Williams and George s. Peters as his
attorneys, and they admit that the
said Farley L Williams, was and is
Territorial Commissioner of Schools,
and that the said George s. Peters,
was and is the district attorney of the
United States, in and for the Territory
of Utah, and they further admit that
| the said receiver was at the time of his
appointment, and is now, the United
States marshalI in and for the Terri
tory OF Utah; but your respondents
deny that there was or is any impro-
priety IN the said Williams, or in the
said Peters acting as attorneys for the
said receiver in the management and
prosecution of said trust, or that there
was any improperly in the United
States marshal for said territory acting
in the capacity of the receiver in said
suit; and your respondents aver that
there is no Inconsistency o. conflict be-
tween the duties Of said Williams as
school commissioner, and as attorney
for said receiver, between the duties of
the said Peters as attorney for the
United States in this territory, and as
attorney for said receiver, or between
the duties of the respondent Dyer as
| United States marshal and as re-
ceiver; but On the contrary aver
that the interests of the COM
mon schools of this Territory, and OF
the Government, in the prosecution OF
the said case, and in maintaining the
rights of the receiver to the property OF
the defendant corporation are identical
And these respondents aver that any
and all insinuatioDs, lnuendoes or i'm
putations contained in said petition ol
unprefessional or improper conduct
on the rart of these respondents, OF
either Of them, is
WITHOUT ANY FOUNDATION IN FACT.
Your respondent, Frank n. Dyer
admits that the said receiver has pre-
scented a claim for clerk hire, compen-
sation to solicitors, agents and en-
ployees, rent of office, stationery, taxes,
and other expenses incurred, to the
amount of 81, S65.63; but he denies any
insinuation or imputation that the
same was not an honest account ana
fair statement of expenses, and AYERS
that the same was and is just and rea-
sonable.
These respondents deny that they
presented the claims alleged for SER
vices, or any claims for specific sums
but aver that when the Supreme Court
came to the matter of fixing the COM
pens alton of the receiver and his solicit
tors, in order to be fully informed and
advised as to the nature and extent of
their services and the value of the
same, r,ferred the matter to an ex-
aminer to take testimony upon said
questions and report to the court such
testimony together with such recon-
mendations as to him seemed justified
by said testimony.
That in pursuance of said order OF
reference, the testimony OF parties com.
petent and fully qualified to speak upon
said subject was taken by said ex-
aminer and reported to the court, to-
gether with recommendations.
These respondents say that they now
and at all times have been content
to submit to the judgment of the
court as to the amount of compensa-
ton that should be allowed
them respectively. They deny that in
any proceeding before the examiner, to
whom vas referred the question as to
compensation for services, the exami-
nation was or at any time became ex
parte.
Your respondents deny that the
| united states QlSCrlcC attorney 1Or
Utah is required by law to act as the
attorney OF the United States in this
action, or that it was his duty to appear
for the United States herein indspen-
dent of special requirement by the At
torney General, land that the spondent,
Peters, appeared therein for the plain
tiff therein on such request, and not
otherwise and respondents deny that
said Peters had imposed upon him by
his oath of Office or by statute, the duty
to appear in all or any contention about
the fund or property in the hands OF
the receiver for the United States; OF
that he had appeared for the receiver
against the United States therein, OF
that he has no
| LEGAL RIGHT TO CLAIM A FEE
or the fee alleged against the funds in
the hands of the receiver, and deny
that the sum alleged as fees by said
Williams is all the fees that should be
allo we'd, or that the same is just com
pensatlon for the services rendered in
aid of said fund by said Williams and
said Peters.
And your respondent, Frank Il