Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1894-06-08
THE SUPREME COURT.
q, Tw SprIDkIinB Tax Appeals
Argued and Submitted.
,rs COMMISSIONER FOR PROVO.
N, case Of Joseph 7. Gallagher and
olber, Against the Yosemite
Mining Company.

=. o,iplons wero handed down at
49,. dsy,s session Of the Territorial
sapr,me Court, but a low more may
eupsc.ed soon.
The uuulnes, before their honors dur
,os the sitting was as follows;
srw COMMISSIONER.
40. smlot IT,, Of Provo, was az.
,,in,ei o U. 5. commissioner for that
cl,y. -. u,.,,,,,
in tho case Of Olsen Va Baglsy
motion to dismiss ny the respondent
No, ubmIiied.
FpsiskLtNG TAX ArrEALs.
The cassa Of o. IL. Petit ct al, plain.
M, and appellants, vs. T., Il. Clute,
,..,,5r and collector q salt Lake
Cuy, defendant and respondent; and
on. Psttt ct al, plaintiffs aud appel
h,r. W Henry II. DIkc, treasurer o (
san Lake City, wero consolidated aud
afgueI together.
inthc nrst named case Attorney 3.
II. Lewis appeared On benail u the
ap5sI.snts anu ia the second the atgu-
menls we're made by Richards s. Rich.
afii. Judge hUgo represented tue city
10 both.
The two suits are almost identical.
AppsiI 10 taken from - judgment Of
tbc rnlri District court (eK. Chief Ju-.
Ice Lmp.} The plaintiffs brought an
action To- uui1in aud restrain the dcion-
usuts from collecting sptiukling
tx levied nEuinst their property ns a
local avrsimrnt aud prayed that tie
city ordinances under which the tax
wa ml Ic Uu declared void. The dc.
'ondauts Oiled gontral demurrer 70
the complaints, which was sustained
ty tho I0wcr court, und thu plaintiffs
e'tciuy 90 stand by their complaint,
luirmrnt Ras entered tor the uecud.
GaH. A reversal ~ therefore now
ought. The spuukung districts TAX.
ins exception ntc Nos aud ..
lhu appellants assign Us error the
ruling OF tho court below sustaining
Toe lrmuffcr auI diROlviug tuo TO-
siiaiuiu order, also deny ~ the H.
Junction aud ulsmissiug the complaint.
lula decision OF the lower court
vis in tltct, they say, dcular.
alton that the ordinances were
valid Huu tho tax legal. That the
CITY Council has the chatter power
go levy anu collect taxes ior general
uud tIucihl purposes on real aud pct
s5ual property" AMI, 10 provide Tor the
lHhtiug, spr ukling aud Cleaulns u
.lfCUrt;" but tue Legislature had never
conferred upon u, la express terms, tue
power 70 levy taxes by local usseBs.
ntut for the sprlnkling Vi streets. APP
lrllanlH cain that no suoh pogor eA-
tts Ia tue CITY, aud that the so.oallri
ifdinauces creating spfinkling districts
aud levying n mont loot tax ON abui-
ug property 10 pay for spriukling the
tfcets are null ana void.
All the Judges at anu listened 10 the
Itgumontr, at the conclusion Of which
he cases we're submitted.
MINING LITIGATION.
The case Of Joseph T.. Gallagher,
II. Remington and George N.
'o.tt, plaintiffs aud respondents, W
ue Yosemite Mining q Milling Co.,
defendants aud appellants, came next.
This was an action brought by Rom.
lgtJn aud Scott ~ plaintiffs la inter.
ssi, and Gallagher NJ trustee, 10 fore.
,.0so a deed OF trust given by tho 90.
endant company upon liz mining
ropetties, on September 10, 1855, ~
.gcuru tho sum Of 81 ,B78.sg; RlsJ 10
recover the sum Of slS,gs15i. alleged
10 have been laid BY piaiuuiis TO re-
deem drfonunutH' properties ~ sale
under prior deed OF lrusi; further, 10
recover $40, 09567, alleged TO have
been expended by plaintiffs, over ami
above all receipts, IN the care and
prtsoryntion OF the defendant CON.
auy's properties. Defendants denied
by plaintiffs with the
condition OF trust agreement under
" uich they acquired legal tide 10 the
alleged gfOes miemangge-
meut anu wasleiul expenditure ~
pltntlils, aud that out u the Issues
sud profits OF the properties In their
care aud possession they had been Oyef-
paid for all their legitimate dIsbursr-
muuts, an were indebted 10 uefeid-
Auts la large sum.
The properties Involved are group
" ia ANNNlVNAh Ahlhlhk tlalilH ANlNAfh
onthB main mineral belt OF Bingham,
surrounded by other old aud paying
mnes, etc., aud situated In West
Mountnln mining district.
The cause was tried by q referee, who
lound tile mAiu Issues Tor tue plaintiffs,
aud that the defendants were Jude bled
10 Remington and Scott In tho SUN
OF 800, ias.05 over AMI above al
receipts ny them from tue Issues and
profits OF tue said property ani premi.
rs, Hiareport was confirmed by the
Third district court aud now trinl
iellsvdi the present appeal being from
'he order overriding the motion for the
same.
Counsel In tho case nre' Attorneys
Arthur Brown, NJ. NJ. Kalghn ana
Frank Hoffman Tor tho appellant;
Hon, J. l.. Rawline, Attorney Critcl-
low, and Attorney w. II. d ck,on for
Tue respondents.
ADMITTED 10 PRACTICE.
Me'aIs, Daniel Harrington and
Alllah FaTr were this afternoon AZ
United 10 practice al the bar Of the Ter
MORTAL supreme court, the former on
motion Of Hon ]. H. Rswllns, amt the
i,g'ler On motion Of Attorney J. II.
Alyls
.1he Trout Case.