Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1891-10-27
cosrrscArroy SUITS DISMISSED.

lS the Third District COURT TINS
morning, District Attorney Nariani FOR
himself aud the Attorney General, took
very important action Ia reference to
property In this city which had been
attached and held by order of thu
court as Church property subject to
escheat to tho United slaics.
This property consists Of what Is
known ms the whitney property, on
the northwest corner Of what IA com
msnly called the TithiuR Ollice block,
with small piece " land on the east
Of that corner, also the Cannon HOUSE,
on South Temple street. The District
Attorney filed amotlin to dismiss the
suit. against these pieces Ofreal estate.
lie also included In the motion u
dismi-s, all Of block 81, which Is better
known ~ the Temple Block. THIS
wns merely ~ formal Withdrawal u
claim H. that block for Il was settled
~ the property u the Church when
the decree Of the court WIS made IN
1855.
The District Attorney also FLED n
motion in the supreme Court, the text
OF which will b. formed In another patl
Of this paper, that the Receiver be In
slmc,ed TO dismiss tho suits against
the pieces Of property 10 this city aud
IN Ogdtn which hr had claimed rs
Church property aud subject TO
cschcsL These consist OF what l.
called the Council House corner la
this city. anu the Tabernacle squafc,
the Tithing Onlcc ground aud the
5hurllIlf place, formerly the properly
Of David NJ. stuart.
Although the fling " these papers
are simply motions to dismiss, aud M
action tan 10 taken by tho supreme
Court until H. session In January
next, yet Il mny be constituted an a
virtual ending Of the suit- against the
property m.ntioncI,n us the District At
torncy represent, aud acts under In
struction Of the Attorney'Genrral Of
the United states. II Is Ia
effect final settlement, on the
basl, Of the agreement or "com-
pr-mlss" entered into by the Church
Attorneys and counsel for the
Government, as to what property the
Church ownod ut the limu Of the dis
solution OF the corporation.
That our readers may understand
the present situation we Will make
some explanations. 1t will he remem.
bered that when the litigation arose
over the Church property through tue
passage OF the conhscation act, there
was dispute m 10 what property the
Church held Mt the time Whom that
net went into effect. In the summer
Of 1855 Attorney +. ), Richards went
to Washington, aud la company with
Colonel Brosdhead had interviews
with Solicitor General jerks aud
District Attorney Peters, ut which the
whole matter was investigated and a
stipulation was made M To what prop.
erty should be understood ~ actually
belonging 10 tho Church at the date
mentioned. A decree was rendered
by tho Court here In October Of that
year, ON the basis u that stipulation,
and the property was turned over u
the Receiver.
Mr.. Richards, knowing what was tn,
understanding Ia this agreement, al
ways maintained that II was iinality
80 far rs tho question Of what III,
Church held was concerned. Blu
efforts were made TO attach pieces o.
property which were not included IL
that stipulation, on the ground tha
the Church still own-l them In reality
though In form they had been con
vey,d 10 their holders. The Council
House corner In this city and the rrs
estate Ia Ogden already mentioned
were claimed by the Receiver, and suit
were entered for their seizure aud for
FIXTURE. Attachments were sued ou
last winter for tho Cannon House M,
the other pieces Of real estate We hav'
described.
MIR, Richards was Ia Washington
when he learned OF those attachments
and he at once went TO Attorney
General Miller and explained TO hin
the agreement mado with the iorme
Solicitor. General. Tho Attorney
General promised to investigate tn,
matter, and coIresponded with Mr.
jerks and Mr.. varisn, and expressing
desire 10 see the latter and Mr. Rich
ards, they went 10 Washington Rnl
with him arrived Mt n satisfactory un
derstanding, IN which It was agree,
that the stipulation or "compromisrl
should be regarded hs iinality as {
what property tho Church owne,
when the Elmunds.rucker Act wen
into effect.
II viii I've remembered that hfte
Judge Hme leit the judicial bench an
before hls rrappnintment, procre!i .
were held brf r. Examiner Hntkuc-
IN which tho Judge aud hi. son az
pc,rsd as attorneys for certain sohOC
trustees. Ia their hnsl statement flle
March I. 1850 this passa Q occurs;
"rhe Receiver and his attorneys pr,
lend that they can pursue this propor,,
In m he light Of tho innl decree In lh