The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-02-17

us CO05eQ u6DC6S or their mistakes,
8 lch they were. are to be saddled upon
b m. Is there any fairness in that? If
hs had got only % per c.nt. of the
property on the advice OF his attorneys,
IOey and not him were responsible.
Judge Mcbride then took up the
sheep question, sustaining Mr.. Dyer in
the good rental he secured for
A LOT OF sCRUBBY SHEEP,
such as the testimony showed these to
be, and at time when the sheep pros
poets were discouraging.
Recurring to the compromise, the
judge said that Dyer had worked
quietly until he had the church people
where he wanted them. He had them
by the throat. and he intended to
hold them there until he got what he
wanted or choked the breath out of
them. They wanted to get the case
before the Supreme Court, and they
had to give up the property in order to
do 1t. But is anyone is to blame in
this case, where do Mr.. Hobson and the
court that permitted the compromise
come in? There has been an attempt
to punish Mr.. Dyer for the sins of
everyone connected with case, if sny
sins have been committed.
They are afraid that the receiver will
not get any more of the church PROP
erty. II he don't get any more
property he won't get any more
pay. He is simply holding off until
this side issue is decided. They say
that the receiver did not get anywhere
near all the propsrty mentioned in the
inventory. How could he get it? There
were cattle to feed with the hay; horses
to use up the grain; people to eat up
the butter and molasses."
PowERs-Yes, and find in this in
ventory some articles under the head of
liquids.
Judge Mcbride then went on to ar
que that the representations made to
the court at the time of the compromise
were sufficient to give the court clear
understanding of what had been done.
1t was not necessary to state that the
SIS 600 was in lieu of so many pounds
of butter and so many eggs. 1t was
stated that a compromise had been
made on the personal property and
that SIS, GOO was the consideration; this
was enough.
HE PROBABLY MEANT "oDIUM
Referring TO the use of the word
"odium" by Mr.. Auerbach in speaking
of the receivers duties, Mcbride said
he was not sure that that was not Just
what the gentleman meant to say. The
contiscation of the property was mott
generally approved. Il had not only
the opposition of the whole church, but
the opposition of leading citizens all
over the country. The church had the
8 ympathy OF all its members, and a great
many besides. Il tell you that the
man who wrings out O.. the Mormon
church SIS 000 is an object of odium in
the eyes of $50 .000 people, even though
he be only an instrument of the law"
Mr.. Dyer had worked hard as re-
ceiver and finally had asked for some
compensation for services rendered
Then it was that the hounds began to
hey. Dyer has good off &c in this Ter
ritory," they say, land besides this be
is gong to make something out of this
receiver business. [ would like to have
some money just now, but l would not
do what Frank Dyer has done for
S25 600. Whenever a man makes a
good sum of money, some one else is
envious and begins to critioise. say |
would not do what Mr.. Dyer has done
for that sum, bad as l need money, and
don't think Your Honor would. 1
don't think Mr.. Dyer would take it
again. With this racket about
MS head, being bounded by men
whom he thought were just, think be
would try to live OF little less money
and leave the receivership alone"
After arguing that a man who could |
get bond of $4,000 in this city was
no ordinary man and that the respon-
,ibility alone was worth the recompense
asked for, Judge Mcbride closed.
Mr. Critchlow
made brief closing for his side of the
case. He confined himself TO an ex-
PLANTATION of the findings he would ask
for, and which he will hand to the ref
cree in writing tomorrow. He said
that in his opinion the order of the
court changed the scope of the exam
nation from the range of the allega-
tions made in the petition, and he
would ask for findings on some points
within the range of the petition and
yet not within the range of the order.
Mr.. Critchlow then went over the
ground covered by Judge Marshall at
the morning session and made many
new points. He commended that the
word "misled" used in the petition did
not necessarily imply an intentiosal
deception and he would ask finding
to that effect. In reference TO the
sheep. he thought that the only evil
dence of value was that of the men
who had leased these same church
sheep, prior to the appointment of the
receiver, and he commended that from
10 to 50 cents per head per annum was,
according 10 such testimony, Q fair.
rental for those sheep. He claimed
that the receiver had been neglecttul in
not taking steps to sue for the property
that was known to exist; he was not
about the fact that salts
had not been brought, but because no
steps had been taken to bring them.
Mr.. Critchlow said that he would ask
Tor an express finding that the receiver
has made claim of S25 600 as cOmpen-
'ation and would also ask q finding tina
Inc amount is grossly excessive, exor-
oitant and unreasonable and that the
,laim was not made in good faith.
The examination adjourned to Mon
lay afternoon at 2o'clock.