The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1891-03-17
OF FACTS
Conclusions of Law in the Rob.
erts-Pratt Case.
ROBERTS GETS THE SALARY
The Auditor Must Hand Over Warrant fo
$1,000 TO Elm, in Payment
for Services.

In the case Of Bolivar Roberts, treasurer,
vs.. Arthur Pratt, auditor, the following
J findings of fact and conclusions of law
were fled in the Third district court yes
terday, end will be signed by Judge Ander
son on his return.
| THAT on March IL, 1886, the plaintiff
was appointed the treasurer of the terri
tory OF Utah by the governor thereof an6
was then and there commissioned as such
officer; that subsequently, on March 16
1886 the plaintiff took and subscribed the
oath of Office required by law, and executed
an official bond with good and sufficient
sureties as such officer to the territory Of
Utah in the sum Of sos, 000 that being
more than one-half of the revenue of the
territory preceding the said appointment
OF plaintiff, and IN other respects condi-
toned as provided by law.
THAT thereupon said plaintiff demanded
OF James Jack, who was then and there act
Ing as such treasurer, that he surrender tt
| him the said Office, moneys, books and other
property thereto beloging as the insignis
thereof, which demand was then and there
refused by the said defendant; that there
upon, on the 10Th day of March, 1856, an
action was instituted in the said court by
the people of the territory OF Utah, on the
relation Of w. H. Dickson, United States
district attorney for said territory, against
the said James Jack, to exclude him from
the said Office of treasurer, and to obtain
| judgment that the plaintiff was entitled
thereto; that afterwards such proceedings
were had in said action; that on April q,
| 1886, the court rendered its judgu ent to the
effect that the SAID James Jack had usurped
add was unlaWfully holding and exercising
the functions of said Office, and that he be
ousted and excluded therefrom; anG
further, that the plaintiff was lawfully APP
| pointed to said Office, and upon taking tue
oath and giving the bond required by
law, was lawfully entitled TO hold,
use and exercise the said Office and re-
ceive the em0luments thereto belonging :;
that afterwards, by an appeal to the su-
preme court of said territory by said James
Jack, the last named court by its decision
in said case, rendered on June 10, 1886,
IN all things affirmed the Judgment of the
district court; that during all the time
hereinbefore named and until the month of
February, 1890, n. W. Clayton was acting
in the said office of auditor OF public &C
counts, and was at all the dates hereinbe-
fore mentioned and until February. 1899,
the de facto auditor; and that said n. w.
Clayton bad full knowledge of the appoint
ment OF said plaintiff to said Office of treas
urer, and Of the said judgements of the dis
trict and supreme courts as aforesaid; that
the said defendant, Arthur Pratt. entered
upon the duties of auditor of public ac-
counts in the month of February, $780, aud
has ever since been an now is the auditor.
3-Ihat on February g. 1888, the legis
lative assembly of said territory passed an
act appropriating ''for salary of territorial
treasurer for 1886 and 1887, 81, 800.
THAT on February S, 1885, plaintiff de-
manded of said n. W. Clayton, as such de-
facto auditor, and that he issue and deliver
to plaintiff warrant in his favor on the
territorial treasurer for he said appropria-
ton, but the said n. w. Clayton, as sucn
auditor, then and there refused =nd con-
tinued to refuse so 10 DO, during the whole
OF the term he was acting as such auditor.
5-That the said defendant, Arthur Pratt,
submit to the direction of the court in this
proceeding whether or not he shall issue
said warrant.
6-That on February 8, 1888, N. w. Clay
ton, as such auditor de facto, issued a w ar
rant TO James Jack, who was then the terri
torial treasurer, for the said appro priation
of 81, 500.
The finding of facts arc, that the plain
| tiff was the legally appointed and qualified
treasurer for all the year 1856, after March
10 of that year, and for the year 1885, that
he is entitled TO the appropriation of 81. 500;
that he is entitled to peremp tory writ OF
mandamus to compel the defendant To issue
a warrant On the treasurer for 81 800: that
n. w. Clayton had no right or authority to
issue his warrant for 81, $40 to James Jack
that it is the duty of the defendant to issue
to the plaintiff warrant on the treasurer
for 81 800