The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-02-05

did not, and l thea remarked that We
must rely upon the representations of
the receiver and mis- solicitors. I I'M
derstood that there were certain parties
who claimed to own it., under those
circumstances. understood the
amounts proposed were fair and rea-
sonable-S42 .925 for the Wells corner,
S36 241 Is for the Constitution, and
So 800 for the Cannon tract. certainly
should not have authorized an order
without any idea as TO the value of the
land in compromise. Had l thorous hly
understood that the amount was as
high as it was. should never have ap-
proved it. / considered that the
amount offered wsss the full value
of the land under the circum-
stances-that certain persons were
elmer holding the property as trustees
or that the transa ction had been made
to avoid the escheatlng of the properly
to the chnrch. | understand that the
order was substantially by consent. The
order authorizing the compromise will
show, think, that it was made solely
| on the recommendation of the receiver
and his attorneys. The receiver was
ordered to report to the court his &C
tieu for approval. Mr.. Marshall, l
| believe, made some statement to the
court. asked whether the attorneys
considered it fair value, and their
reply to these questions satisfied me.
l don't wish to be understood as saying
there was any Intentional misslate-
ment; but assuming that the property
was worth 500 600, was merely nis-
lead-that is all. I do not believe there
was an official stenographer present.
To PowERs-The first they did was
the presentation of the petition, which
was read t. the court. l believe Mr..
s.lchards was also present. The petit
ton gave description of the property,
aud the claims of the receiver, and
stated that in one case an answer had
been filed and demurrers entered in the
others. l do not think there was any
thing said in the petition about the
actual cash value of the property in
volved in the compromise. 1 under
stood that the money received was TO
be turned over in lieu of the real estate
mentioned. l do not recall what was
read. We Understood that the COM
promise had been made by consent of
all parties. l understood, also, that
the figures named in the petition indi-
Gated nearly the value of the property.
gathered that idea from oral state
ments-the statements made by Mr..
Marshall oand Mr.. Peters. They salts
fed us on that point. could not
undertake to give Just what Mr.
Marshall said. understood
that the titles to the property
were in litigation, of course.
AS | before said, do not believe there
were any Intentional misstatements
made; it is probable that the attorneys
were misled when they made, the
statements to the court. wonldhave
been willing, under the circumstances,
to have ratified the compromise for less
than the property was actually worth.
A compromise always means that.
To MARSHALL Il supposed that both
sides were giving up something that
! they might claim. l do not remember
any thing being stated orally before the
court about there being any serious
difficulty in maintaining the suits.
There was nothing said as to the
amount of concession the United States
was making in the matter.
To PowERs-I did not give much
credence to the statement in the petit
ton that the defendants had purchased
these properties in good faith. OF
course, 1 attached some importance to
it, don't remember speaking to Mr..
Peters after oming from the court and
fsaying: ~ believe you have made a
Every good compromises" 1 may have
said so, assuming that the figures men
toned were correct.
JUDGE B9REMAs.
Remember the petition heretofore re-
ferred to; that Mr.. Peters read it, and
that several of the attorneys made some
remsrks-it seems to me that all sides
we're represented. The idea was that
there were some suits that were con-
tested; that there was considerable
doubt about the ability to maintain the
suits, and that tae church had agreed
to pay over to the receiver the
! amounts received by it from
the parties holding the legal title. I
understood that the church claimed
the amount was the full amount; that
the other parties claimed more, but
that, owing to the question of title, the
receivers counsel were in doubt of their
ability to maintain the suits. To my
mind, the whole idea hinged upon the
question of title.
! To MARsHALI-The idea passed
through my mind that the amount
named was either that or nothing; that
there was question of great doubt in
the minds of the attorneys, and that
| they had better take that than run the
risk of getting nothing. l had no idea
as to the value CT The property then,
and have none now.
LIE aRANDE YOUNG.
Was attorney for the church in the
suits brought against it by the receiver.
Remember the petition being filed l
remember some question being asked
and some statement being made. The
receiver and his counsel, the way I'M
derstood it, were of the opinion tn 1T
the amount named in the petition was
all they would get in case the suits were
pushed to trial. think l know by
whom the offer to compromise was
made. l do not know whether it was In
writing or not. I do not care to state
i who 1t was, unless l am com
PEELED to. l presume Mr.. Richards
made it. 1 do not know that he even
told me so, but know that did not.
Mr.. Richards Is either in Washington
or Chicago now. l doubt very much if
there was written offer; if there was
i one, | do not know it. My clients in
the case are the defendants generally
do not know that l could tell them
all. was employed by the defendants
in theae cases. I have been in the reg