Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1906-07-07
SAME OLD PLANT.

SAmE bLD ILAlNl.
These allegations are substantially
the same as those Bon the former COM
plant, ana they do not state either the
terms OF the trust. or the manner Ia
which the Church funds are to be man
aged or expended The ayermeut that
the tithing Is paid according 20 a doc
lrine and rule nj the Church" does not
\ throw any light upon the terms OF the
trust. or the manner in which the titl-
ing may be- expended. and that is the
| important particular IN which the for
mer complaint was defective.
THROUGH SOME LAW"
1t is also alleged in the second
amended complaint that the Church
has no constitution or bylaws and mo-
articles NJ association. and II has not
adpoted any rules or regulations desig-
mating the purposes to which the
Church funds In the hands Of the trus-
tee IN trust may or can be devoted, or
how he shall use thin. This allegation
l Is evidently made because Of the state
! ment In the discision Of the court. that
/ the determination Of what the powers
1 and limitations ~ authority on the part
/ Of the trustees were could only be de-
! termined by reference 10 the laws.
/ rules and regulations Of the society and
| the terms OF the trust But, the ale
| cation that the Church has not adopted
| any rules or regulations on the subject
/ does not meet the objection, because II
is alleged that the tiihing is paid ac-
cording to a doctrine and rule Of the
Church And this must necessarily he
50. The court IN It's decision on the
former demurrer. said that the tithing
must necessarily be paid through
some law, rule or regulation p-omul-
gated by some persons or body having
authority 10 act in such matters. The
complaint, however. Is silent as to the
character or terms Of any such rule or
regulation with reference TO the object
Of such payment, or how the funds
created thereby shall be managed and
be applied, and with whom, II anyone,
rests the discretion Of determining or
directing such management or eXpen-
ditures.'
CREATION OF TRUST.
II is not claimed that the trust was
created by reason OF any express d.
reotions and limitations made By the
donors 81 the time Of making the con-
trlbutions, and therefore the terms Of
the trust can only be determined by the
law or rule Of the Church under which
the contributions were made. And this
law or rule or doctrine" as II is called
I'm The complaint has not been set forth,
and therefore does not appear to the
court. This is vital defect I'm the
second amended complaint. and. as the
court said IN It's opinion, 1T cannot De
determined whether a breach Of duty
or the failure to perform an obligation
has occurred. unless the duty or obli-
CATION be clearly set forth and defined"
NOT LEGAL ALLEGATIONS.
Counsel pointed out numerous con.
illusions Of law IN the second AMENDED
complaint. which were not legal allegi-
tons. because they dd not state facts
and the court had so held in its de-
clsion. lie insisted that the facts sta.
ed IN both complaints we're suhstan.
TALLY the sane. aud that neither u
them stated a cause OF action. because
they did not state the terms Of ;he
trust, or such facts as would enable the
court 10 determine whether or not there
had been a violation Of IT,
HAVE NO INTEREST.
Mr. Richards also claimed that Il did
not appear from the second amended
complaint HAT the plaintiffs had such
an interest In the subject matter Of the
action as would entitle hem to ms-
tute or maintain the suit. They do not
even alleya that they are tithepayerS.
or have contributed IN any way to the
fund which they seek to have the court
control, nor do they show that they
belong 20 any Of the classes Of persons
that would have an interest in the dis
trbution Of the fund. The law says
that the action must be prosecuted I'M
thu name Of the real party In interest,
and numerous cases were cited 10 show
that the plaintiffs did not have such
an interest as would entite them 10
maintain the suit Among other cases
counsel referred 10 the matter OF the
Intervention " George Romney. Henry
DlnWooiey James Watson and John
clark iu the Church escheat case. where
they claimed that the property ~ the
Church should 60 10 It's members upon
a dissolution ~ the corporation But
tho supreme court Of Utah denied their
application and decided that they had
no legal claim or title In and to The
property.
As TO INTERVENTION.
n the iutorveuprs On that case. who
were members ~ the Church and mad
contributed 20 the church fund had no
such Interest Boo u as would entitlo them
10 intervene and prevent II from being
esCheltCd 90 the government. certain
~ the plaintiffs iu this case have no
such Interests in the Church fund and
property which have been accumulated
N. r.r.-L..I.- H. IL 40 mn. ~ /. ~. u