The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-09-16
Suit to Determine the Tanner OF
Their Disposition.
BETWEEN COUNTY & STATE
APPEAL CASE OFF WAsATCH MIN
ING co. VS.. JENNINGS ARGUED.
Action Involving the Power of a
City Council to Revoke a Retail
Liquor License Short Orders
Made in the District Court-suits
Filed and Court Notes.

State Auditor Morgan Richards, jr.,
yesterday filed in the supreme court a
petition for a writ of mandate order
ing and directing Clerk Stanton, of the
Third district court, to pay into the
state treasury the sum of 50. 1O1. 20, fees
collected by Mr.. Stanton in criminal
and civil cases, except probate cases
in the Third judicial district court, in
and for Salt Lake county, between Jan.
4 and June 4, 1926.
The petitioner relies for the granting
OF his prayer on the act of the leglsIa-
ture which, as he constructs it, makes
1t the duty of the clerk of the court
to pay said fees into the state treas
ury on April l, 1886, and quarterly
thereafter.
In the act of the legislature it was
not clear whether the first half years
fees after the admission of Utah to
statehood should be paid to the county
treasurer or the state treasurer. Mr.
Stanton was advised that the county
treasurer was the proper party to
accordingly he paid the amount 70
him, and now the present action is
brought to have the money paid to the
state treasurer.
September 20 was set for hearing ar
guments on the petition for the writ.
WAsATCH MINING co. VS.. JENNINGS.
Case of Old Standing Argued in the
Supreme Court.
The case Of the Wasatch Mining
company VS.. Priscilla P. Jennings ct
al. executors Of the will of William
Jennings, deceased, appellants, was ar
gued before the state supreme court
yesterday by Hon. ]. L. 2awlins for
the appellant and Messrs, w. H. Dick
son and John NJ. Zane for the respon-
dents. The facts appeared to be that
William Jennings and one John Clark
bought in the mine at a marshaPs sale
and the plaintiff alleges that Jennings
and Clark made the purchase on &C
count Of all the stockholders of the
company, and TO save the mine from
passing out of their hands. They, how
ever, retained the property and worked
it for their own benefit and extracted
ores therefrom TO the value, it is al
legged, of s125,000. Plaintiff prayed for
an accounting and that the defendants
be compelled to convey to it the right
The defendants denied that they pur-
chased the mine on behalf of the stock
holders of the company and allege that
they acquired the deed absolutely and
in their own right and in good faith
entered into possession of, worked the
property and made large expenditures
thereon, in fact, spent more on it than
was realized from the sale of ore taken
from it.
1t was adjudged in the lower court
that William Jennings and John Clark
purchased the property on behalf of the
of the company and held
it simply as trustees for the plaintiff
and it was ordered that they re-convey
the property to the plaintiff and pay
it S23, 103. ~, the net amount realized for
ores extracted
The judgment was reversed by the
supreme court and a new trial ordered
before Hon. Thomas Marshall, as re-
fierce. Mr.. Marshall found that the
property had been greatly benefited by
the work done on it by the defendants
and that the defendants had expended
SIS, 743.07 more than the amount they
received for the ores taken out 1t was
therefore decreed that the plaintiff
might have the property from the de-
PENDANT by paying that sum and inter
est, amounting to S34, 81 in all and
that if the plaintiff failed to pay the
amount within sixty days from Nov.
10, 1895, it was forever barred from as
sorting any claim to the property.
The plaintiff moved for an order of
court setting aside the findings and
decree of Referee Marshall, which was
granted by Judge Hiles, who also order
ed that the findings and previous judg-
ment entered, together with certain
findings made by Judge
lilies, be entered. Rawlins & Critchlow
on oehaH OF the defendants, objected
to Judge Hi1es making any other ind
lnss except to rule on the motion to
set aside Referee Marshan's findings.
and the defendants appealed from the
whole Of the order made by judge
Hfles and on this appeal the arguments
were made yesterday and their honors
took 1t under advisement.