The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-01-22
is TN CONTEMPT !!
The Three Judges
All Say So.
DYER MUST ANSWER
The Examination to be Con-
tinued on Thursday.
WHAT WILL THE HARVEST BE9
Another Excellent Chance Tor Fur
to Ffy-Look Out For
Squalls.
DYER MUST ANSWER
WHAT WILL THE HARVEST BE9
Another Excellent Chance for Fur
to Ffy-Look Out For
Squalls.

| Squalls.
The space allotted to spectators in
the Third DISCREET Court room was
Well-6lled yesterday morning, and in
side the bar were large number of
attorneys. The unusual gathering was
| due to the expectancy that the ques-
ton of compensation of Receiver
Dyer and his attorneys would come
up. Judge Sanford, however, thought
it would be better to take an adjourn
ment until 2 O'Clock, at which time q
decision would be rendered in the mo-
| ton heretofore made that the receiver
be required to answer the question pro-
| pounded to him in the examination
held before Judge Hardness some time
since, or be punished as for contempt.
At 2 O'Clock there was another "big
house." and after the usual prelim-
inaries. the ball was opened by Judge
Sanford, who delivered the opinion
given below. He was followed in the
order given by Justices Henderson and
Boreman.
JUDGE sANDFoRD.
a petition was presented to this court
in the above entitled action, signed by
T. G. Bailey, chairman of the Board of
! Trustees. Seventh School District; Ru-
| dolph Alff, chairman Board of Trustees.
! Eighth School District, and J. T. Mills
paugh, secretary Board of Trustees of
the Twelfth District, for permission 10
be allowed to become parties therein.
That petition was denied, on the
| ground that they were not proper
parties and had no right to be brought
| in as interVenors.
The petition, however, contained
serious charges rejecting upon the re-
ceiver appointed in that action, and
upon his attorneys, and 1t was decided
| that while the petition should not bs
granted, the charges of corruption,
fraud, improper and unprof 5ssional
conduct ought to be investigated.
Leave was given, there ore, to the petit
TONERS to file their petition in this
court. The persons charged with
improper conduct were required
forthwith as officers of the court to file
their answers thereto; and in the Iau-
guage of the decision then made, lit
should be referred to al examiner to
to sustain and disprove the charges
contained in the petition"
The question of the amount of COM
pensation which the receiver should be
entitled to receive for his services hav-
ing heretofore been, by an order of this
court, referred to an examiner, it was
further decided that that question
should be reserved until the report of
the examiner to be appointed to take
proofs of improper and unprofessional
conduct should be received.
Thereupon an order was entered
and the charg of maiversation re-
ferred to Examiner darkness. An eI-
animation was commenced before that
examiner. and the receiver, Dyer, was
sworn and Intercepted as to his con-
duct. He refused under the advice of
his attorney, as appears from the
record before us, to answer certain
questions declared by the examiner to
br proper. His refusal so to answer
has been reported to this court, and an
order is asked for declaring him guilty
of contempt, and that he be punished
| therefor.
Amotion is also made for an amend
ment of the provisions of the order
| heretofore granted, denying the appli-
cation of the school trustees and pro-
| Viding for an examination of the said
charges. Tbs amendment requested
is that after providing that the exami-
ner take and report such evidence as
may be produced either by the petit
TONERS or the receiver and his counsel
touching the matters in said petition set
out, there be inserted after the words
"set out" the following words, "to- wit:
charges of corruption, fraud and IN
professional conduct" so as to define
with more particularly the precise
4 matters referred and to be examined
before that referee The two applica-
tons, as they relate somewhat to the
same matter, may be considered to-
gether. When the order of reference
directing that testimony concerning the
charges set forth in the petition
was made, it was the inteation of
the court that the examiner therein
appointed should take proofs touchir g
the alleged misconduct OF the officers
of the court only, inasmuch as the
question of the amount of compensation
to be allowed to the receiver had already
!. been referred. This intention was cyl
dent from the decision of the court
then rendered. If the order made had
been drawn so as to embody the pur-
pose of the court, the amendment
TO the order now sought would have
been unnecessary. If granted now the
amended order will incorporate the in
tention and decision of the court, as
then expressed. and we think the
amendment should be allowed. Az the
order was originally drawn, the petit
toners contention that the question of
compensation was also referred had
some grounds, if read alone, and
not in connection with the decision OF
the court. Under the order OF the
court, as then entered, tne question
which the witness refused to answer
was proper and pertinent, and the
question should have been answered.
On such an examination as this, the
wisest course generally is not to stand
on the accused's legal rights, but to an
swer freely and in detail all questions