The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-02-21

possession of property, or that he acted
otherwise than in good faith.
Fifth.
Ga a reference to take testimony cor
cernlng the compensation OF the re-
ceiver and his counsel, testimony was
taken before Examiner Sprague, and
report filed November %, 1888. and the
report and all the proceedings before
said examiner are in evidence here. The
receiver proposed his compensat' o.
should be agreed TO by the parties, but
was told by Mr.. Peters that the Attor-
MY or Solicitor General would have TO
be consulted on the part Of the govern
ment. The receiver saw two of
defendants counsel, and after naming
$25 900 as the amount he thought
he should receive, asked if the
defendants would consent to the allow
ance of that sum. They asked time to
consult clients, and after some delay,
| wrote letter to the receiver, saying
! in substance. the defendants would not
oppose the allowance. One Of defend
ants counsel thought the amount eX-
| cessive, and did this because he con-
| sidered the government would oppose
| it, that the court would fix the amount
and probably do so without much refer
ence to tbs views of tie defendants, but
mainly fron its own views, and he de-
cliued to formally assent. The other
counsel considered and advised his
clients that the matter was o. small i'm
portanee to the defendants; that if the
| law was held unconstitutional, the gov
ernment would pay the church its
] losses: if otherwise, it was matter OF
small Importance to the church how
much was paid for fees, as in thateVsnt
all the money would be lost to the
church. There was no agreement, IN
| Outstanding or expectation that
THE DEFENDANTS SHOULD BE FAvoRED
or in anywise gain anything for not OPP
posing the allowance. Messrs. Sheeks
" Rawlins, of counsel for defendants,
were not consulted and did not act in
this matter. With this letter and the
letters of various business men who
gave opinions, the receiver should have
from $50 COO to $4,000 The receiver
| went to Washington and saw the Soil
| citor-General, but was informed it was
not proper for government officer to
| give his consent, and that the court
was proper tribunal to adjust the
| compensation The receiver returned
and the examinat on contiDue1. John
+ .Ag o GrG esbeck had been examined as
Ias Witness before the receiver went to
Washington, and the receiver gave his
own testimony on his return, and other
witnesses followed During that exam
nation the United States was OF re-
presented. except in a limited way by
b, given for special counsel
(whom he had requested the Al :
sorney- u eneral to send) Mr.. Pet
ers, who requested time should
to come, ana repres nj the government,
and that no report should be made or
any final action taken until such spe-
ciai counsel could have an opportunity
to be heard and take such action as he
desired. On the examination of Groes
beck the attorney for the receiver put
to him question. hypothetical in its
nature, but intended to be statement,
in o general way, of the services per
formed by the receiver, and the results
: of such services, as basis for the wit
: ness to estimate the value of the
services. The witness had previously
said he knew of the main suit, aud that
: the receiver had handled various
! classes of property. Tbs question then
J; put takes about one and half pages
and is on pages 2 and 8 of the report OF
the testimony. The testimony of the
, receiver is Oh pages to 20 inclusive
Counsel appointed by the court in this
: proceeding, by argument and requests
for findings, ask that it be found from
J the evidence now taken, in substance
That the receiver in his testimony be-
fore Examiner Sprague, in many cases
} magnIfed his services as receiver, and
! sta ted them unfairly intending to de-
caive and mislead the examiner and
the court; and that other witnesses
called for the receiver were asked to
estimate and did estimate the value
} of his services upon the theory that
his testimony was true, and that by
thsse means the examiner was iEhu
enced and induced to report and did
report finding that from the evidence
the receiver should be paid S25 900 for
mis- services. Also that IN tbs question
quito GroeS beck false statements were
made of snco services, by stating ser
vices not performed;
Bye yERsTATING THE TIME
devoted to the business; by oyerstat.
, ing the number and extent of the
, agencies and means employed by him
in his business, and, as a result, thai
} the receiver had made an unconscion-
able claim and prosecuted it IN bad
faith. The testimony now taken and
! relied on to support these requests
may not all be found together. hut
assume the greater part of it is in the
| cross-examinatlon of the receiver, in
that norton of the examination CON-
mencing near the end of page 996, ano
continuing many pages.
Inc nature OF the subject ia such
that 10 summarize the evider ce on ali
the specifications would require an
, analytical comparison of the evidence
on the two examinations, and con
sideration CT the scope, nature anc
purpose of the examinations of tbs