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


THE TABLES TURNED.
1t will be Observe1 that the petition
OF the persons heretofore mentioned,
expressly charged that the receiver and
his attorneys, Peters and Williams, mis-
led and deceived the court into the
adoption OF compromise of the suits
against the defendants, for the recovery
of the real estate mentioned, and that
by this fraud and DECEPTION there was
loss to the fund of over 100000. 1t
was further charged that the receiver
rented 10000 sheep for 20 cents head
per annum when be could have gotten
40 cents per head. Aud it was further
charged that he compromised claim
for cattl" for SIS 600 that was worth
$268.S9S 80, and that that transaction
was made
WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF THE COURT:
and it If further charged that property
to large amount, which the receiver
could have taken possession of, belong
ing to the late corporation. was by him
neglected; and that his failure to do so
was for want of attention to his duties
as receiver, or for willful negligence, or
through combination with agents of
the late corporation. And it was
charged that Peters abandoned his
duty as district attorney to the govern
ment and took employment from the
receiver. and that he was making a
claim against the inter ests of his clients,
to wit: the government. and thereby
implicitly charged with malfeasance
and corruption in Office. 1t was fur
ther charged that P. L. Williams, a
commissioner of schools, accepted en-
ployment against the interest of the
school fund, and that he was guilty of
official misconduct; and that finally
the claim upon the part of the receiver
for SIS 600 as compensation, to use
the exact language of the petition, lis
grossly exorbitant, excessive and I'M
Questionable"
1t is difficult to imagine how stronger
charges than these could have been
made; and il even one of them should
be true, then the receiver and his solic-
ltors g not only not entitled to any
com pensation, but the receiver should
be dismissed from his Office as such,
aud his attorneys disbarred from the
right TO practice in the courts of this
Territory.
Taxing this view of the matter, the
court readily and without hesitation,
sought by all the means IN its power to
give to these petitioners an opportu-
nifty to prove the charges, and hence,
in its amended order, made the refer
ence as broad as it could we'll be made,
and even went so far as 10 include In
the. reference all allegations of fraud,
corruption and misconduct, or frauda-
lent and unconsclonable claims and
charges for compensation and annr2-
fessional conduct On the part of the
receiver.
On the day after the last order was
made, SAID petitioners. together with
one other psrson, by the name of L..
U. Goliath, who had not heretofore
appeared before the court. came into
court and presented through their
counsel paper writing, containing, in
substance. the following:
Unto the court your petitioners, the
school trustees, respectfully state: The
order oil the court as now modified by
the court, has
TOTALLY CHANGED TIE NATURE
of this proceeding. A petition in cham
Gerry has been transferred into a criSsn
insl complaint. We ceme here to cou-
test the compensation of the receiver
and of mis- solicitors, and our petition
was for that purpose. Under the for
mer order of the court. we could have
done so; under this order We cannot.
The court has now ruled that we can
not do the only thing that, as school
trustees, we were interested in doing, or
had the right to do. We are COM
oIetely excluded by this amended
order from performing the only duty
h connection with the matter that our
,tiice places upon US. But by this
order, the court would I'M
pose upon US the duty of carrying on
IN investigation into the conduct of
,fficers of the eonrt for the sole benefit
" the court, while con6ning, by their
rider, the inquiry within narrow limits.
The court has decided that our particu-
ar INQUIRIES of the receiver were
proper, but at the same time has ruled
hat
LIZ. oFHER QUESTIONS OF THE SAME
NATURE
ire improper. The court has so changed
he order that it is doubtful whether
vs could introduce testimony upon
most of the allegations of the petition.
,ecs1se. legally, they do not amount to
;QaEE6S VI lBhuU, COTIUpblcn VI prOI66-
ionabmisconduct. We are cut off from
Ill inquiry into anything except those
statements in the petition
which directly and in sufficient legal
,hrase charge fraud. corruption or pro-
essional misconduct. We can offer
roof under this order only of charge
or compensation that is both freudu-
emit and unconscionable. We have no
.lleg ation of such q charge in our petit
ion, and therefore we can offer no
,roof Whatever on the subject of COM
,ensatlon. Had we understood when
his reference was made, that the In
'estigation would be limited as it now
8, we would then have declined to pro
iced. II it be the duty of the court to
carefully scrutinize the conduct of its
,wn receiver, and if it would place this
laty upon us, then it should not limit
ine investigation as it now doys, to par
ocular acts and to those alone, but in
Justice to US should extend the investi
ration to his emf ire conduct as receiver.
20 assuming The duty of the court. as
We would were We to proceed under this
order, We would be so