Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1894-03-30
THE DISTRICT COURT.
EI-COunly Treasurer ToTOntOS Suit
AalSl Salt Lake County,
a QUESTION OF COMPENSATION.
some Contempt Proceedings Springinr
Out u psrk tliy
Partnership.

The arguments In the case Of J g..
Toronto " Salt Lake County, on me.
ton 10 strike out part VI answer aud
for judgment, were made aui con.
cludoi this morning before Chief Jus.
ticr Merritt.
The paintld was represented by AZ.
iorncy WalIumar Van Cot aud tho
county ~ County Attorney Murphy.
In the year 1880 Mr.. Toronto was
elected treasurer Of Salt Lake county.
the school law providing that the
county treasurer shall handle the
school m0ai,s, aud also that the
county court tx bis compensation.
thu Territorial Legislature Ui lsgl en-.
tended the tUrm Of uliiuu 90 the
county treasurer Up TO January ist,
1923 When hu had acted uuiilOc.obtr
1907, little over two Year,, MI rorou.
10 applied % the county court, uHdut
that law, 10 name the amount ui com
poutalion 20 which he was ent,tlud,
ard II was nAed at $500 paf
anrum. On December 8lat Of the
Hauu year plaiuuu wont our VI ofiicp,
aud on March la.n of the year follow.
INK pfrHuutui his claim, amounting t.
Sl,ltl.Ui, thiH being for the puTiDd OF
q yuars, 40 the $500 prr aunum rate.
lnu county court, however passed
fta luton rejecting tho claim, tut
offered % give him 5000 in illl pay.
mcut for the HyrvicUa he had rendered
during the q yuau Tins was DO.
ciiucd.
Judge Merritt now held that Mir.
Toronto had performed all the duties
Of the ONCE, nui the c0mpunratiUu
having bueu fixed by the county court,
u became therefore vested hight Of
that body aud tho salary could not be
reduced. His honor accordingly uut.
nincd tho motion.
ALLEgED coSrnwr.
Contempt proceedings arising out Of
tho suit tue Syms Utah df0cusy co.
W Mclaughlin q Co., OF PARK Iity,
are about 90 be- aired IN Chief Justice
Mefriipa division OF the Third DlstrlCt
Court, the defendants o. q. LockhaTt
and T.. G.. Williamson having been
cited 10 show cause why they should
not 10 punished for contempt Ia dis.
Oteying an order Of court.
On supplemental pfOcco1ings had
before Referee Harris some time ago II
developed that L0ckhaTt hal the sum
OF y, 600 Ia his possession, and this no
was ordered 10 turn over This, how.
ever, ho failed TO do. The same as TO
Williamson, lie, II transplred, WIS
directed 20 assign TO the U. :. marshal
liD shares OF stock In tno Society Build.
Ink Association, but he has neglected
70 obey the order contained iu the re-.
port OF the referee, aud confirmed by
Judge Zane.
Attorney Schroeder appears for the
plaintiffs anu Brown a lien 1crsOn for
the defendants.
TO DISSOLVE AN ATTACHMENT.
A large portion Of Judge Bartoh's
time today was occupied with the fuf.
thUr legal Arguments In tho case OF
Andrew BriNon Va VIM. Gr0psbrck IT
al IL WIS motion Of the defendant 10
dissolve an attachment. The motion
was Instituted by plaintiff on PRONE
isHUTy note given him by the defend.
ants for the sum OF II, 800 secured by
300 SHARES OF stock ia the Gfoesbocl,
company, Of the value Of a, 500. when
maturity was reached attachment pro.
ceediugH were fvnorted 10 M against the
property; aud II was the attachment
thofeon that the defendants now sought
10 dissolve.
The case was taken under advise.
ment by His Honor.