Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1893-08-31
IEE CHURCH CASES
Passed Upon by The Territorial
Supreme Court this Morning.
JUDGE ZANE WAS REVERSED
As TO the Iilhug Yard aud Historian
Ollee, which is Not Subject
10 E,chcat.

Territorial Supreme Court ut this
mornings session In regard TO the
Church cases:
United States Of America, resp1n.
dent, W certain real estate known a.
the Tithing yard aud offices aud
William -. Preston OF A., appellants
Justice Smith aNld-IhiH " nn action
begun by the United Staios ngainst
certain real estate belonging 70 the
late corporation Of the Church of
Jesus Christ Of LnttUr.day sginta, 20
forfeit and CaChuat the property. The
property Involved In this particular
action Is part Of lots three (3), four (l,
five (5l and six (6l block eighty.tight
1851, plat A, salt Lake Guy turvey,
commonly known 40 and called tue
Tithing yard aud Oilicca. The defend.
ants, Willism u. Preston, Robert r..
Burton and John Il. Nindor, are nj.
Legged 10 be claimants o. trustees oi
the property Tor the voluntary religious
association known 40 the Church OF
Jesus Christ OF LattcrdRy Sainte.
James T.. kfctze aud Spencer ClAws3n
interviewed In behalf Oi themselves and
all other mumhUTs Of tins religious A.
ISOLATION known NJ the Church Of
Jesus Christ OF Lattcr.day 5aints,
claiming that the property belonged TO
that religious body. The defendants
PfestOn, Burton apu Winder answered
the complaint. Freeze aud ClawsOn,
by their petition Ia Intervention, BOT
up Substantially the same facts A. gl.
legged la the answer u tbs trustees.
The case WAS tried by the court without
Jury. Fiudingb Of fact and conclusions
OF law were made aud judgment on.
tered la favor OF the United States,
csoheEtlng aud forieiting the property.
The defendants aud inteIvUnOu ap.
peal. Two assignments OF error are
made which We deem Il necessary TO
consider upon this appeal.
First, that the court erred In dccld.
Ing that the property was sul Ject ~
forfeiture or eschelt, for the reason
that upon the facts found II appeared
the Church Ui jesus Christ VI Latter.
Gay Sniuts bad vested interest IN
SAID property On or before July let,
ls62.
Second, the court erred In deciding
that the property was subject ~
forfeiture or esclient, for the reason
tnAt upon tho facts found all proceed.
ings TO forfeit or oschuht the property
were barred by section 1917 Of the
Revised Statutes Ot the United Slatcs.
This section Of the Revised Statutes
was pleaded bJth by the defendants
and the iniofyenUrs In bar VI the
action. We will consider these objoc-
lions In the inverse order In which
they are stated. Section lUiT relied
upon Is 10 followsi "No suit VI prose.
outiun for any penalty or forfeiture
pecuniaty or Otherwise, acctuing under
the laws Oi the United States, shall be
maintained except IN cases where Il ~
otherwise specially provided, unless
tho same 10 commenced within five
years from the time when the penalty
VI forfeiture acCTued,b The forfeiture
claimed Ia this case arises under sec.
ton OF the Act Of July let, 1862,
which is 10 follows! "IhAt Il shall not
be lawful for any corporation or
association for religious VI charitable
purposes TO acquire OF hold real estate
In any territory Of the United States
during the existence u the territorial
government, Ui q greater value than
$4,000, anu all real estate acquired
or held by any such corporation or
ossOcialiOn contrary 10 the provisions
OF this act shall be- forfeited and
tsohentod to the United States, pro.
vlded that the existing vested rights
IN real estate shall not DO impaired by
the provisions Of this section" Tho
title to the land In controversy was
acquired by the Mayor VI Salt Lake
ely In November, 1871. In 1879 1t
was conveyed 10 the trustees Of the
corporation Of the Church OF
Jssus Christ Of Lattor.day Saints
for the use and benefit Of said church.
Title remained In said trustees until
the third OF March, 1851. IL Is claimed
by the appellants that more than ave
years having elapsed since the perfect
tide TO the properly was acquired by
III Church, that no action can now he
prosecuted by the United States 10 for.
leit or tscheat the property. We have
been cited ~ no case upon this ques.
ton exactly like tho ono at bar. Sew
efnl cases nave been cited la which II
is held that section 1917 applied 10
debla and civil actions ana forieituroa
"a well as to criminal ones. IL was 90
hrld in the case Of Adams Va Woods,
< CranCh, $3.50, which was suit 10 ON.
force u penalty founded on the act Of
tho 22nd Of March, 1894, Fir6t stat.
utes at large 847 prohibiting the slave
trade. IL was held that the action was
'ANNt NV hNNAhk hANh hNkAh "tAhAA
lhe period prescribed by the statute.
Mnrshall q, j., discussing tue ques'
uoui says; at Ia pretended that the
prosecutions limited by this law are
those only which are carried on In the
form of un indictment OF information,
and not those whore the penalty Is de-
mandod by action of dobt. But II the
words Of the ACT be examined they
viii be found to apply not only 10 any
PARTICULAR mode OF proceeding, but
GENERALLY 10 any prosecution, trial or
punishment for the oilense, aud the
court hold that tho action OF debt for
the penalty was "A prosecution and was
barred by the Statute Of Limitations.
We think Section lOl7 inCluues civil
hs well o. criminal proceedings. But
lhe ulillculty In the case at bar IL that
we language Of section three OF the act
oi July LIST, 1862, To that all real estate
acquired or held by any such corpora
Von or association shall be- forfeited,
etc. Counsel for appellant do not
ueny but that the property In
question was held IN violation
OF this statute wilhiR five
years preceding the commence.
meut VI this suit. Tho cases most
nearly In point, tbeems % Us, are those
arising under the internal revenue
laws, where proceedings IN rem for
IoHeliing real estate arc repeatedly
provided for. For instance, land be-