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

tied States provides that a person
learned in the law shall be appointed
in each Territory as Attorney Tor the
United States, and he is required to
act in all cases as the attorney OF the
United States, and that 1t was the duty
of the said Peters TO so act in this
case: that it was his duty TO appear
for the United States IN the main
case and in all contentious about said
funds and property in the hands OF the
Receiver; that this duty the oath pre-
scIibed by section 1873 of the Revised
Statutes Of the United States imposed,
and saiQ attorney had 10 legal right to
appear against the United States, or TO
claim g fee of $40, 900 or any other sum
against the funds in the hands OF Inc
Receiver; that the sum OF SlU,OOO
claimed bv said Solicitor Williams, if
it be intended TO include services here
after to be rendered said Receiver, as
well as services heretofore rendered,
may be reasonable, and ifalloWed, it is
all the solicitors fees that should be
q. owed against said fund; but petit
TONERS deny that any allowance for
future services to any person whatever
should be made at this time.
Your petitioners further represent
that the amount of compensation
S25, 000-claimed by the said Receiver
for his individual services. is grossly
eXorbitant, excessive and unconSclon-
able; that the allowances to the Re-
ceiver for his services must be only for
those rendered by himself and he can
not be allowed for services for which
his agents and lemployeS may be al
lowed and paid; that his rights and
compensation and his conduct as Re
ceiYer of this court must be treated
by equitable principles, and as Re-
ceiver he must have been Industrious,
economical, diligent and strictly con-
scientious; that the services which the
said Receiver claims to have rend-
cred were largely performed by
the agents and employees of said
Receiver, that, furthermore, the differ
ence between the amount for which
10000 sheep above mentioned could
have been rented and the amount for
which they were rented is about $4,000,
as YOUR petitioners are informed and
believe, and that this amount should
be deducted from said RECEIVER COM
pensation (if in view OF his breaches
of duty be is deemed entitled to any
compensatory, and if it be that he so
rented said sheep in return for any
benefit to himself or in the hope
thereof, then he ought not to receive
any compensation, and said contract
of renting should be dlsapproved and
the Receiver held for all loss to the
fund ia consequence of such wrongful
renting.
And your petitioners are further in
formed and believe that the sum of
$4,000 above mentioned, received from
the said defendant in compromise for
certain property above mentioned, was
a grossly inadequate consideration,
and the Receiver should be held to &C
count to the fund for the difference
between $50, 900 and fair considera-
ton for said property; and such DIFF
ference your petitioners believe is not
less than $4,000; or that said trans
action should be disapproYed by the
court, and the Receiver held TO strict
accountability for all loss in conse-
uuance of his wrongful action; and
further, that the said Receiver should
be held accountable for the loss to the
fund and to the common schools
caused by the compromise upon
the real estate above mentioned
and this loss your petition
ers charge, on information ana belief,
is not less than $135, 900; and that, fin
ally, if said Receiver be allowed any
compensation at this time, it should
not in any view exceed S5OOO.
Your petitioners further represent
that they are informed and believe that
the said Receiver now claims through
his solicitors that the common schools
of this Territory have no beneficial in
terest in the money and notes received
by him for the compromise upon the
land acquired by the late corporation
and held in violation OF the third Sec
ton of the Act Of Congress OF July 1st
1862. or in the rents collected from the
real eseate now in possession OF the
Receiver; your petitioners insist ina
this claim of the Receiver and of biz
solicitors is unjust and inequitable
that neither the United States nor an
of its officers, nor the Receiver haC
the power to deprive the common
schools of their right to have suct
land converted into money or othel
proceeds, or of the rents thereof, anC
TO have the same applied to their uSt
and benefit; and that this attempt tt
defeat their rights shows the necessit.
of their being heard and OF their beini
allowed to protect ana defend thel
interests; that inasmuch as the eqult
able rule with respect to parties i
That q party has an interest in the sub
iect matter of the suit either imposes
sion or in expectancy, which is likel
either to be defeated or to b
diminished by the plaintiff
claims (the Receiver and hi
solicitors being In this proceeding Ia
claimants), in such cases such part
has an interest in resisting such claims
and is q proper party; and lnasmuc
as the common schools of this Terri
tory are interested in the funds an
property IN the hands Of the Receiver
to the value of the real estate and tn
rents and profits thereof, and of tn
proceeds of the real estate converte
into money by the Receiver, in tn
compromise, and that no one is ap
pearing in behalf of the commo
schools and resisting such claims, an
that the fund is likely to be greatly dl
minished by said claims, the appear
ance of some one for the commo
schools is rendered absolutely neces
sary, to the ends of justice; and tn
facts that the Commissioner of School
of this Territory is employed by sal
Receiver, against the interests of sal
schools, and that the United State