The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-01-08
is HE IN CONTEMPT?.
Notice of a Motion to be
Made Next Monday.
ASKING THAT DYER SHOW
why He Should Not be Punished for
Contempt-AnxiOus for fur
ther Testimony.

The Supreme Court convenes on
Monday next, the 18th inst.
On that dateit is more than probable
that fur will fly again.
On that day Judge Hardness will
make his report on the Dyer Peters
Williams Zane matter.
That there will be a lively legal tussle
is evident from the following notice of
motion, which was served upon Judge
Powers, one of the solicitors for the
receiver, yesterday:
Please take notice that in the pro-
ceeding in the above entitled action to
contest the allowances irom the fund
| in the hands of said receiver, to the
receiver and his attorneys, wherein
r. @. Bailey and two others are COM
pIainants and said Dyer, Peters and
Williams are respondents, before
Robert Hardness appointed by said
court to take testimony touching
the matter set forth in the petit
ton of said Bailey and others.
We will move this honorable court at
the court room thereof in Salt Lake
City, on the 18th day Of January, 1889,
or as soon thereafter as counsel can be
heard, for a rule on said f. II. Dyer to
show cause why he should not be pun
ished as for contempt of said court in
refusing to
ANSWER CERTAIN QUESTIONS
put to him touching matters alleged in
said petition of T. G. Bailey and others
and denied in the answer Of said Dyer,
Peters and Williams before said Robert
Hardness, examiner, and decided by
said examiner to be relevant, compe-
tent and material, as we'll as proper to
be answered; and inasmuch as said
DYER had answered that he had devoted
most of his time and attention to the
duties of receiver, and had mentioned
certain real estate in his possess
I. sion that consumed portions Of his
. time, and the further question had
: been asked: "What otner property
l was il that took so much of your
time-the corner did not-you COM
promised that?" to which the witness
had answered: I'VE did, finally, yes
g sir; but there was great deal OF WORK
, done on that before any compromise
was arrived at" and inasmuoh as the
: further question was asked him by the
9 solicitor for petitioners, "What worE
4 did you do on it?" which question the
]. witness refused to answer under In
s struction from his solicitors, who ther
gave notice that they would instruc
e the witness, who was also their client
not to answer any questions relating tt
the compensation or TO the allowance
TO BE PAID THE RECEIVER
: or to his solicitors; and inasmuch q
= said examiner decided that the question
l. was proper, and that any inquiry touch
q ing such allowances and compensation
n was proper and embraced in the orde
= of reference, but that he had nj
: power to compel an answer, b.
5. punishment or otherwise. Tn
= solicitors for the petitioners, de
string this honorable court to rul
10 upon the same. and to instruct salt
K witness to answer said questions ant
z such other questions as the examine
ot may decide to be competent, relevant
material and proper to be answered
and the said examiner having decide
to postpone further action and to re
port the matter to the court, we vii
- also move this honorable court to fl
in the time It which said Robert Harknes
nj shall
a RESUME THE TAKING OF TESTIMONY
of touching the allegations of ssid petitio
70, and denied in said answer, and the a
~ legations of the answer denied in sal
II. replication, and to instruct said witne
d accorning to the rules prevailing
We courts of equity in such cases, to al
swer the above question that he refuse
to answer, and all other questions tn
said examiner shall decide to be mate
Ne ial and relevant to the issues formed
e. said petition and answer and repl1catio
and for such further order as the cou
may deem equitable.
The document was signed by K.
" Baskin and Zane u Zane.
Reconstruction Impossible.