The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-01-30

AHAVEE OF REFUGE.
The petition further alleges, as petl-
tioners are informed and believe, THAI
there is property to large amount
OF which said receiver has not taken
possession, that was owned by said de-
tendant corporation and was in the pos
session of its agents or OF others of said
corporation after said receiver qualified.
and that he could have taken and OBJ
tanned possession of said property by
the use of reasonable diligence as re
ceiver, and that his failure to do so was
from want of attention to his duties as
receiver or from willful negligence or
through combination with agents of
the late corporation.
The petition further alleges that the
receiver, after he had entered upon his
duties as such, retained one P. l..
Williams, who was and is Territorial
commissioner of schools, and one
George s. Peters, wno was and is the
attorney for the United States in this
Territory, as his attorneys and SOL
letters. That the said receiver was at
the time of his appointment, and is
now, United States marshal for said
Territory; that as receiver he presented
claim for allowance to him for clerk
hire, compensation 10 solicitors, agents
and employees, for Office rent, station
cry and other expenses, amounting to
the sum of 81 ,S65 SO; that not having
! yet been made parties to this proceed
Ing or granted leave to appear therein,
your petitioners have not examined
said report OF expenses of the receiver
sufficiently to point objection thereto;
that such an examination would in
yolve a scrutiny of vouchers and prob
ably an examine alton of witnesses; but
! that if permitted by the court to do so,
your petition ers, as they are Informed
and believe, can point out
wELL-FoUNDED DIRECTIONS TO SAID Ac-
COUNT.
The petition further states that thes
receiver has presented claim fon
allowance to himself, for bis individual
services as receiver, of $25 COO; and in
addition, each of is solicitors pre-
scented claim for $4,000, ssid CLAIMS
| eggregating $50 S65 81; that said claims
for allowances were referred to the ex.
aminer in this case to taxa testimony
as to the amount to be allowed; that the
United States Attorney for Utah and
the Territorial Commissioner of Schools
both appeared for the receiver in the
taking Of such, testimony, and no one
appeared for the United States, or for
the said common SChools; that on such
examination the defendant corpora
ton at first appeared by ITS solicitors,
Messrs. Sheeks & RA Wins, and by
them the first witnessea produced py
the receiver were cross exA mined; Dat
afterwards, as petitioners ars informed
and believe, they were instruch by tue
defendants not to cross-exansh % ana
MOTTO contest the claims of the rsA 'elver
or Of his solicitors, and thereupoEs .'ney
ceased to make any further coutA ~,
and the examination became and wa
wholly an e1 parte examination by, the,
receiver and his solicitors before sH,i0 !
referee.
The petition then proceeds to alleg, !
that under the law George 8. Peters, as |
United States district attorney, .wSsa'
bound to appear, by virtue of his Office,
for the United States, in all suits in
which the United States was q party;
and that he was not entitled
TO HAVE OR RECEIVE ANYsUM
for any services hemay have performed
IS solicitor for the receiver in this case;
and that the claim of the said Williams
IS solicitor for said receiver for $40 600
was much too large.
The petition then proceeds in 80 many
words, 10 charge al follows: Your
petitioners further represent that the
090-claimed by the said
recsivsr f his individual services, 10
grossly exorbitant, excessive and un-
that the allowance to the
receiver for his services must be only
or those rendered oy himself, and he
cannot be allowed for services for which
ais agents and employees may be al
owed and paid.
The petition further states that the
Inference between. the amount for
which the 80 00G sheep above men
ioned could have been rented aud tie
amount for which they were rented, is
about 500, aud that this amount
should be dedUcted from said receivers
if, in view of his breach
Of duty, he ls deemed entitled to any
and if it be that hs so
rented said sheep in return for any
benefit to himself, or the hope thereof,
saen he ought not to receive any CON-
and said contract of renting
should be disapproved and the receiver
held, for all loss to- the fund in conse-
guence of
SUCH WRONGFUL RENTING.
The petition further states that petit
sioners are informed and believe that
the sum OF 1000 above mentioned, re-
ceived from the said defendant, in COM
promisefor certain properly above men.
toned, was q grossly inadequate con-
sideration, and the receiver should be
held to account to the fund, for the diff
ference between SIS 600 and fair con-
sderstion for said property; and such
difference your petitioners believe is not
less than $l75,0 goo; or that said trans
action should be dispEoved by The court,
and the receiver held. to strict account
ability for all loss in consequence his
wrongful action; and further, that the
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 mentionsd;
and this loss, your petitioners charge,
On information aud belief. Is not less
than $135 900; and that further, if said
receiver be allowed any compensation