Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1893-06-15

~
pellans.
Uni,rd states OF America. re-.
epondenl, VI certain real estate know n
me- the Gardo House aud grounds, and
the Historian's Onlce aud grounds and
William -. Preston ct al, defendant.
aud James T.. Fretz, ct al, interyen1rs.
appellants.
United States Of America, 70.
sp0n1eni, W certain real estate sitiat,
IN salt Lake county, Utah Territory,
and Francis Armstrong et al, az.
pellauts.
Uhltcd States OF America. To-.
slondeut, w certain real estate
situate In Summit county, Utah Terri.
tory nud Angus NJ. Cannon, trustee.
appellant,
The appellants were represented b,
Attorneys Hon. +. =. Richards. lie
Grand Young aud w. II. Dickson.
United States District Attorney Jul,
hnd Bennett, Marshall aud Bradley
were counsel for the government
Il was agreed that the four c,so,
should be- argued together. An the
actions are proceedings U rem 90 for.
ioit nni cschrat certain tp4i estate ar.
quirci aud hUlt by the late CORPORA.
tOu Of Tue Church OF Jrtus CHRIST u
Iaitrf'dny Saints Ia alleged violation
ui section 3 OF the auti.puiyghniy acI
o! CungtCss u July |, 1862, nad wcr,
INSTITUTED by tho attorney general uI
tue United states ne pursuance OF sec.
tiou 10 u the EImuuls.Tucker act
u Feb 10. lss7. 10 was conisndud by
the appellants iu the case OF the tltli.
my yard and on cua that the proper,
sought 60 Zee vsuheatri IL eXcuptel
ltlui the operation ui section 3 VI a.,
act u July !, 1862, as real estate legal
ly acquired or iu which the ChufcU
hou vratgd rights a. the date VI me
passage Oi SAID nc,e, In regard o. TIA
second clIc - the Glfdp House
etc the ground Ia taNon that these
premises woru saved from forfeiture
10y TIE pfovltJ 90 section Is Of 10,
Eumunit-lugkef act, o.. u Patronage;
auI iu all Of the uCtiOus Il 'ia cl,imr
that the proceedings arc uatfti by
section lUi1 VI the Il ylsei Statutes 1i
the United Su,cs, All that th- plain.
uiis having 'i-st c0nvo,ed tho title IRE
u'tpppcd TO lJifslt H. An Of thrup
puaif are taken on the Judgment f,.I
alone except VA the csre NJ the Gard
House, etc, IN which case there g. h
brief statement. with reference a.
vested Interests It l.. Insisted thlt the
words "dsht " property lesnlly ac
quilted" VA section aud the wafds
'vestcd righ,a iu real ttttic" in Pee.
lion 0 u the not OF July let, 1856.
have very different meauiuut-
shat by tho former 1t was Ia.
tended 10 save iiom Gifcitur.
a class u properly when wUull be- Tor.
ioi,od unger the latter. 4, b. pointed
out ON the other eide, how ever, thai
stciign . uppleH CNclu 1vrly g. The
Mormon Church, while section up.
plea ~ all ruligioua or charitable c8r-
porali0us or ass relations, ino uding tht
Mormon Church. Itisbuted, ugAin.
That tho act IN question gives no evi
jenco Of any legislative intent 20 siu.
gle cut the Mormon Church nsIu
object of especial favor, but that u wa
enacted 20 condemn ana punish the
practices nnd teachings OF thst
Church; anu Il was ,simply 10 csnapr
the criticism Of special lygisiaiiou that
~ iRr ~ property rIghts wero con,
corucd all churches were ut On the
same plane.
Appellants ask tho court 10 taao
judicial notice Of tho uato Of tho
oilirial survey aui return q. thu town.
chip plat, Including the premises Ia
question, anu while the rcsp1udeut's
counsel 90 not agree that II IL a matter
10 he noticed iuilolsily, yet they say
" such u1.lcu T. 10 uu taken IL would
be OF the ifub Jate, namely, the sur
vry was made Ia May, 1863, and AZ.
proved May alst, 1863. La tue case VI
bar, II II urged, it would make no ar.
ference II the survey had BEEN made
and plat returned PRIOR TO 1862, because
the pfemlseB being eettlBd Uu aud Oecu.
pied ms u tOwnsite were ut that Time
reserved from sale.
lt Ia also c0ntended that the several
actions are barred under the provision
OF section lOiI, Revised Statutes, US,
which 10 ia follow: "NU suit or
prosecution for any penalty or forfeit
uTc, peouniary or otherwise, aCcruing
under the laws OF the United States
shall be maintained,
unless the same IN commenced within
hve yerrs from the time when the
penalty VI forfeiture accrued.n
The arguments were expected to DC.
oupy the entire day.
LOTS OF Law IN THIS.
In the Supreme court yesterday
afternoon tho legal arguments were
made In the case OF I. Il. Jones VI
William q. Gallagher, appellant-irom
the Third district court.
The original complaint was filed
January 10, 1873. Plaintiff alleges |
that he had advanced at the doiend. |
ante special request the sum Of fB228.. |
SOi nnd demanuod Judgment In that |
amount with Interest. fhe defendant |
Averrod that he and the plaintin were |
dealing In mining stocks The stock
was purchased by the plaintifl for the
use Of the defendant, and 10 his credit,
and the defendant had the right b. 81. |
rect lsuch purchases and sales. De.
iendant further alleges that plaintiff |
failed TO follow his directions In sew
oral Instances, whereby ho was dam
aged In the sum Of $4,000, and hence
demanded a Judgment against him
Tor that amount less PLAINTIFF claim.
Tho case has been tried three
times The inst trial was before
4 Jury and they rendered
Judgment IL favor OF the de.
'rndant on his cross.complaint for
IS, 1880. The plaintiff appealed 10
he supreme court and the judgment
was reversed on the ground that the
plaintiff was not bound 10 obey u Ger.
ain telegraphic order relative TO the
urn Of stocks. Tho next trial was
before Attorney w. III. Dickson, 10.
cree, anu following the pTecept laid
Town by the supreme court he found
or the plaintiff in the sum OF SIO2s |