The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1889-02-01
THEY MUST BE HEARD.
The Charges Against the Re-
ceiyer to be investigated.
BY CBIrCHLOw AND MARSHALL.
The Ques ion of Contempt Deferred
Until Report Is Made to
this Supreme COurt.

| announcer phase IN Inc celebrated
Dyer-Zan controversy developed itsel
yesterday.
1t will be remembered that on the day
previous, Judge Zane, on behalf of thu
J trustees, submitted statement to the
court, which was received but its con-
tents not made public. Below is the
document IN full. 1t appears to be &
clear case of
"DIDN KNOW 1T WAS LOADED"
To the Honorable Supreme Court of III.
Territory Of Utah:
Your respondents, Rudolph Alff, J
F. MlllspaIgh, l.. U. Goliath and T. Q.
Bailey, to whom notice have been issued
requiring them to show cause why they
should not be punished for contempt,
represent AID show unto the court:
| That they ara now and ever since
prior to the first day of November,
| 1888, have been trustees of schools of
the school districts named in the peti
| ton herein; that, commencing on or
\ about the 14th day of November, 1888,
an examination was held before Com
nv siouer E. L. Sprague, special com.
missi ner of this court, to whom had
uo IL referred, by order of this court,
the taking of testimony in regard to the
| compensation to be allowed to the re-.
ceiver and to his solicitors in the above
case; that the examination before said
referee showed aggregate claims
| against the fuI d in the hands of the re-
celver of over $50 900, of which $25 900
| was for the receiver, $4,000 for each of
his attorneys, and over 81 600 for the
| expense account of said receiver; that
no contract was made to the allowance
OF these claims against the fund on said
examination; that on or shout the 22d
| day of NnVemser, the boards of
| trustees OF the school districts
| named in Lne r. LItion, met and passed
re DectiVely q resolution authorizing
and directing one of their mum Der to
| employ counsel to contest the said
claims OF the said receiver and of his
| solicitors, and to represent The interests
and defend the rights of the respective
school districts in the above entitled
| case, that this action was taken by the
said school boards because they deemed
| 1t their duty, as school tru tees, to pre-
serve as much of the fund as possible;
that in so doing, they were actuated
to the public and for the benefit of the
common schools not only of heir dis
trict, but of the whole Territory. Thew
believed that they were taking an &C
lion that was laudable and necessary
fof the public welfare.
That in accordance with said rosolu-
tons, your respond hts did retain
counsel, and on the 28th day of No
Vember, 1888, appeared by their solicit
tors and presented to this court petit
lion wherein they set forth the facts
that gave them as they supposed the
right 10 appear; that his petition was
based upon the testimony taken be
tore the said examiner which is a rec
ord OF this court, upon statements
made in the public press, upon state
ments made by various persons. and
upon information within the knowl-
edge of the general public; that in their
petition they prayed that they might
be allowed to appear by their solicitor
or otherwise in order to defend and
preserve so much of the fund as might
belong to said schools and that sach
other trustees of district schools as
might wish to come In might also be
made parties or allowed to ap-
pear, and that your petitioners
might be allowed to produce
evidence to prove and substan-
tiate the facts stated; that when
the petition was presented the court
made an order in which it was directed
that said petition, if verified, be referred
to r )bert Hardness Esq to take such
testimony as by the petitioners and by
the said receiver and his solicitors
might be produced touching the mat
tiers in said petition set out; that your
respondents, thereupon after con-
sultation, being advised by their solicit
tors, that under the order of reference
they were in almost the same position
as they would have been had they been
made parties to the proceeding to fix
t. compensations. determinod TO pro-
coed that hes verified the petition and
it was filed, and lhereup0n auu before,
IN preparing the evidence and in secu.-
ing the attendance of witnesses for the
contemplated examination they ex-
pc ded between $500 and $500; that
aas YER was made by the receiver and
his solicitors wherein every alleg cation of
tue petition was denied; that the ex-
animation was begun on the
10Th day OF December, 1888, and
was by the defendant receiver
a witness, declining to answer in de-
fance of the ruling of the said exam
iler; that thereupon the examination
was closed, and your respondents, at
the first session of the court thereafter,
applied for rule against said witness
requesting him 10 answer; that after
wards said receiver applied to the court
for an order amending the order of re-
ference; that the questions were argued
before the court by solicitors for the
respective parties, and thereupon the
colrt allowed the amendment to the
order of reference; that the
order was directed 10 be settled
by their respective solicitors; that the
solicitors for defendants proposed
draft of an order, to which the solicitors
for the respondents objected, and in
order that there might be no mis-
uno erstanding as to the meaning of the
order, asked for the following insertion:
And 80 testimony as to whether $25 600
is an excessive, tx 'rbitant and ,uncon-
scionable charge for what said receiver
has done, aud In proof of such issue,
any evidence may be offered of what
the receiver has done or of what he has
not done that he should have done.
This insertion the court declined to
make, and made the order which is
now Of record; that thereupon