The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1890-09-10

,. Smally VS.. Ralph G. Smally, in which a
uecree was granted on the grounds OF habit
ual drunkenness
In the case of Augusta Fassell vs.. Martin
Fassell, the defendant failed to appear and
the plaintiff was granted divorce on the
grounds OF cruel treatment and desertion.
In the case of John +. Marks VS.. w. h.
Casady, the demurrer was oyerruled and
the defendant allowed ten days to answer.
l.. u. Hardy VS.. G. w. lockwood ct al. ::
decree Tor plaintiff quoting title.
Isaac Hunter VS.. Moylan G. Fox: motion
OF plaintiff to strike out portions of the
cross complaint, was argued and submit
ted.
Mary Stringham vs. Charles Watson ct
al; demurrer withdrawn and answer filed.
| Ezra Thompson ct al. VS.. David Keith ct
al; demurrer Withdrawn.
Z. p. Romadke ct al. VS.. M. II. Lipman;
demurrer sustained.
| j. b. Swenson VS.. 0. d. Hendrickson !;
demurrer submitted.
The People eX rel ct al. vs. Louis Cohn
ct al; demurrer submitted.
William Fuller VS.. Joseph Oberndorfer;
motion to set aside verdict overruled.
u. Is. Anderson vs.. C.. ID. ST. George
motion of defendant to inspect papers al
lowed.
G. f. Babcock VS.. l. j. Starbuck; mo-
ton OF plaintiff for Judgment against sure
ties argued and submitted.
THE CHURCH PROPERTY.
In the proceeding in the church cases to
escheat property in block 81, plat A, Salt
Lake city survey, motion to set aside the
proceedings was argued and submitted.
Inc argument was had On the following
motion:
In the district court of the Third judicial
district of the territory of Utah, Salt Lake
county.
In the matter of proceedings for the for
feiture of real estate, formerly held and
owned by the corporation of the Church OF
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Please take notice that we appear in this
action for Francis Armstrong, Angus M.
Cannon, Jesse w. Fox, jr., and the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-Gay Saints, for
the purpose of this motion only, and no
other purpose, and upon the information
filed herein by A II. Garland, attorney
General of the United States, and George
). Peters, attorney of the United States
for the territory of Utah the monition and
attachment filed herein directed ito the
marshal of the district of Utah, and the
return of Frank H. Dyer United States
marshal and all proceedings of record in
| said matter
We shall move the court at the federal
court room in Salt Lake city. territory of
Utah, on the 10Th day of December, 1888,
at the opening of court on that day or as
soon thereafter as counsel can be heard for
an order that the said monition and attach
ment, the alleged service thereof, and all
proceedings thereof be set aside, and that
the whole of said proceeding, including said
information, be dismissed with costs upon
the following grounds
This court has no jurisdiction of the
subject matter of said proceeding, nor of
the property or any part thereof described
in said information; nor of the parties
whose interests. right or title of. in or to
said property are sought to be affected, for
| feited or escheated
2-There are no parties to, or named in.
said proceedings or any of them either
plaintiffs or defendants, and said proceed
ing being directly against property in rem is
contrary to law and the practice of this
court and wholly unauthorized
3-No complaint has been filed in said
proceeding naming the proper or any par
ties-either plaintiff or defendant-st stating
any cause Of action therein whatever, in
conformity with law.
mo summons has been issued in said
proceeding directed to any officer for ser.
vice, nor has any service been made of any
summons, monition, attachment or other
process upon any person or party whose in
terest in said property is sought to be af-
fectnd by said proceeding.
5-Said proceedings and each and every
part thereof are irregular and without
warrant or authority of law and contrary
to the practice of this court.
6.-This court has no jurisdiction of said
real estate for that the same is in the Gus
tody of the supr 4me court of said territory
through its receiver, and no lawful attach
ment and seizure thereof has been or can
be made under or by virtue of any process
of this court, And said pretended attach
mentls irregular and void.
| Said process of monition and attach
ment was not directed to any officer known
to the law but ito the marshal of the dis
trict of Utah" and the pretended service
thereof made by Frank H. Dyer. United
States marshal, who is and was at the
time of said pretended servics the receiver
appointed by and required to hold said
property for said supreme court of Utah
To George S. Peters, attorney for the
United States for the territoryiof Utah.
SHEEks & RAwLINS,
| Attorneys.
Mr.. Rawlins reasoned with great ability
and clearness in support of the foregoin2
propositions, maintaining that the only or
derby, certain, proper and lawful method OF
determining the claims of the parties
named in the motion was that prescribed
by the code of civil procedure; that the
parties in interest whose rigats in or claims
! TO the property IN dispute were In leopard Y
had a right to be appraised by an informa-
ton which it was the duty of the govern
meut to file, of the facts or alleged facts
upon which the claims of the government,
to the property in controversy were based
He showed that this procedure included the
filing Of a complaint, the issue, service anG
return of summons, the opportunity to join
issue by answer, and to have a jury trial
He held that the plaintiff in the. notwith
standing that it was the sovereignty haC
no right to prescribe, in its own interest
an abnormal arbitrary and summary method
of procedure such as has been taken
Mr.. Varian insisted that when the
sovereign proceeds against the property oil
offenders it has right to designate the
tribunal before which the proceedings
shall be conducted, and the mode of pro
cedure that shall govern. He held that the
monition had been due notice to all the
world to appear in court and file claims tt
the property in question, if any existed
But Mr.. Rawlins showed that, even were
this DONE there still existed quandary
The filing of claims by his clients did no,
remove the fact that the government hac
presented them with no allegations which
they could answer. and that, therefore III
issue could be joined, and without an issue
there could be no trial, by jury or other.
wise
Adjourned until this morning at 10.
They Took in a Grip