Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1891-10-21

" Wantru icN minutes 10 hFr
O'Clock when The couti adjourned.
inns MoRNtSG'a SESSION.
when the court ro.assembied, Mr.
Narinn called a. n witness Mr.. Frank
II. Dyer, formerly receiver in the
Church cscheat proceedings.
Mr.. Nariau said-I want TO call
your attention 10 the matter NJ COM
promise made with the Church au-
thoritie-, with a view TO designating
precisely the several amount. In money
that were received for certain things.
Perhaps that report will show II hand
lug to tue witness one OF his onlci
reports for inspectlop.)
70 Mr.. lliclnfls- This L. the poti-
ton | made 10 the supreme Court
asking for authority 70 compromise.
To Mr.. Narlan--rhs $1,000 head NJ
sheep were turned over to me a. Re.
ceivor. They wefe all leased
10 different rartlol-the greater mum.
her 10 Mr. pickari. A few
were invuntoflei IN the compromise Of
$40, 900; hut they did not amount TO
anything. The only notes that wetc
turned over 10 him. aud certainly paid,
were those Tor the Theatre, ~ TAR ~ he
remembered. gas stock. the street Fail.
roads, Telegraph stock, and money on
account OF the property, etc, which
hal been sold. Asked ns TO what was
the present value VI the gas stock, Mr..
Dyer said: My Judgment IA that IL is
worth sl25, ut least, per share.
Mr.. Nnrian--W What ABOUT the present
value ~ the Descrct telegraph atochf
Witnoss--Wcil, ut one timu thought
that u had some value, but the more !
looked Into II the more convinced was
! Of its wOrthles.uevs. would not now
give 81 for tie whole line u Telegraph
In the Territory; we'll, would not take
Il asa gift. ll4auzhtcrll
Mr.. Richards said he desired % Oiler
the statement ~ facts In the Church
ease, filed October sth, 1855. He
wanted II agreed that this statement
WA the only evidence before the lcr-
rltoriai Supreme Court on which cpun.
rel on the other side based their decree
aud findings In this case.
MIR. Rawlins-We take that a. heiug
Incompetent, aud We Object The only
purpose for which 10 can be offered Is
to impeach the decree.
MIR. Narian-Aud We stand right
upon our objection.
Air. Itichards-Iherr " nothing 10
offer II you do not agree. We asked
you simply 10 admit the fnct,
Mr.. Nariau--Aud that " We objected
you wOulI prove II.
l., Grand y,upy an, nj In, a,.
torneys fnr m. ,isfrn,iants la m, cn.,
when trI,I MAJOR. th, Tnrrltntl,i
Supr,me Can't Nh, then cail.j nnI
b.i,i.ntif,J ii,. ,s,r,,J siatsrsut M
fncis ban,i,J A. Mar.
Nj pi,I,r,i.- wa ,ny ,ti,r ,vi.
J,,cc .iii.r ,r,t mr. tn Ia. f,gn, ~ de.
n1sitinns int,o,lnc,d or m. trinl Of
,bat cause,
Mr u,u,tips ,iI.et,I. but The
Nias,,.r In,J tbot ib. sn.x., might IA.
,,Iy,n snti,.c, 4, trturs rnIlng ID n,.r,...
nv Ly ~, bi,b,r cn,irt
,yt,s - -, A.. pi....,.,
" Inv Nn,N''eu ~ N''n'.us
lu,suon ~ the h,sAIN1 anu wa,
uItheI iht,''pSa',u W Wv po'n' ",
ISSUE Mhlch Iesuilou ~ Eon'ln ,
u'sulVory cohNvlAi.Iu" "''"oeH V0uNA''
iAstlhs sohie minute
This closed the testimOny, anu the
arguments began. Ihey were openvi
by Judge John A. Marshal ON INC
part OF the government, who
stated that this case came
before the Master Ia pursuance OF the
decree OF the supreme Court oI The
United States, IL was trc0mmitled ny
that body to tue Territorial supreme
Court aud sent here Tor investigation.
He hr-t called attention 70 TIE evidence
adduoed a. relating 70 the purposes OF
donations, and remarked upon the test.
Z
said IN substance, thnl ,hv iohall1h-
10 the Church were III the hands
OF the trustec'in-trust Tor ll-prnsntlOn
that lhere wtls no lIullhuvh 70 nlS
power III that respect, anu tha ne
could dispense them ~ nc pleased
Counsel quoted rom Milchcion on
Charities Ia support OF ms hrgument
on this mead, anu cohttnded lhat 10
Tar as those purposes sci up ~ 'hn
present scheine were concerned, thcy
were pferluded 10y INC supreme Court
OF the United States n tllH case ana
this surplus iund, as hhd been already
shown, was not TO DO applied 70 The
original purpose AZ nlI' 10 reIerrcL TO
the many phases through Whloh me
Chutch case liau pasAeui anu pIoeeedei
10 criticize we hoheme sunml''eu ny
the delenuaht,
Assuming from INC evidence u
would he conlonueh mat TINS money
was originally Ionatei 10 purposes
some lawful anu some unlawful IN
their character thon TINS decree woiiu
undoubtedly be wrong, but counsel
for the government could rest on the
findings oil iacl IN tlls case anu H. we
decfce 70 overcome any evidence lhnt
might be- Introduced w 10 Tue lawful
ness OF purpose
Counsel turned TO the testimony