The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1906-09-09
OBRAND ACCUSED
OF GROSS FRAUD
Murray JuriSt, slim" Luke and
Attorney Thomas Kane
Are Arrested.
CONSPIRACY THE CHARGE
MEANS FINE AND JAIL TERM III
THEY ARE CONVICTED.

Oiio1 ASS r OuIdhu, justice or the
peace at Murray; James A Luke a
collector for the Merchants Protective
association, and Thomas Kane. an at
torney for the same institution. wers
arrested yesterday afternoon upon a
charge of criminal conspiracy A war
rant Is also out for the arrest Of
Francis G.. Luke general manager OF
the Merchants Protective association.
who is in Alaska
The complaint against the four men
alleges criminal conspiracy i'm seven
different civil cases brought by the
| Merchants Protective association in
Durand's court Tie maximum penal
~ for the offense is $1,000 fine and one
| years imprisonment in the county jail
Durand, if convicted. will forfeit his
Office i'm addition to any other penalty
which may be inflicted upon him.
The complaint was sworn to by Rob-
ert Bridge. q deputy sheriff. 1t was
drawn up by Assistant County Attor-
ney Willard Hanson, who has been
! devoting his spare time for weeks
! gathering data upon which to arrest
/ Durand and the Luke outfit. The war
rants were issued by City Judge J. J.
| Whitaker and Deputy Sheriff Joseph
G. Sharp arrested Durand, Jim Luke
and Kane. Judge Whitaker, after as
pertaining that all the accused own
property, released them on their own
recOgnizance to appear when they are
wanted for trial.
Seven Charges Against Them.
The complaint starts out by making
| a general sweeping charge against the
defendants TO the effect that they did
! ''wilfully. unlawfully and malicously
cOnspire. combine and confederate to-
! gether falsely to move and maintain
certain suits, actions and proceedings:
| to commit acts for the perVersiOn and
obstruction of justice and the due ad-
ministration of the laws. and falsely TO
cheat and defraud sundry and divers
persons of property" The complaint
then proceeds to state seven instances
in which it alleges that this conspiracy
/ was committed.
Jan. 26, 1906 it is charged, the two
Lukes and Kane filed complaint IN
Durand's court in a suit wherein A.
Mayer was plaintiff and W. F. Olson
defendant Acting i'm furtherance OF
| the conspiracy, it is charged, Durand
assumed Jurisdiction Of this case al
though he had no right to do so. Still
furthering the conspiracy, it is
! charged. Durand issued a writ of at
tachment in the case although neither
| the affidavit nor bond for attachment
/ required by law were filed in his court.
The Lukes and Kane il is charged.
I llel oOuSUI ~ COlltCl tie uCBL uliAIl
this attachment. Toad the cOuSpira-
cy. it is alleged, Durand agreed with
the defendant to dismiss the case and
did pretend to disrliss K. Notwith-
standing this pretended dismissal.
| however, DUrand is charged with en-
| tering judgment and issuing execution
against the defendant under which
the Luke aggregation sought to collect
the amount alleged to be due. This
case is now pending i'm the district
court upon the application of Olson.
the defendant, for writ of prohibition
restraining Durand from enforcing the
pretended judgment.
Another Case of Fraud.
March Il. the complaint charges, the
Lukes and Kane filed an action in Du-
rand'S court in which 3. +. Reich was
l.alleged TO be plaintiff and A. r. Pitts
I defendant. Durand is again charged
with assuming jurisdiction of the case,
knowing that he had no jurisdiction.
and with issuing a writ OF attachment
without either the required affidavit or
bond being flied with him.
The same thing. It is alleged. hap
pened the following day in the case
Of Ella L. Henessy VS.. John Walsh.
Identically the same chargeS-assum
ing jurisdiction illegally and issuing
bogus writ Of atachment-are made in
this case
June 9, 1906 the complaint charges
the Lukes. Kane and Durand repre-
scented to William Hobbs that Lyon 81
Richardson had secured Judgment
against him before ]. p McOmie, Du-
rand's predecessor on the bench In
furtherance of this conspiracy. il Is
charged, Durand issued an execution
against Hobbs. knowing that the judg-
ment was fraudulent
No Summons Is Served.
June go 1906, the complaint charges
that the Lukes and KaneS represented
to Al Zuckswert that civil complaint
had been filed against him before Du-
rand, and that summons had been
served upon him regularly, and that
all necessary steps had been taken to
obtain a judgment against him.
In this case the bald charge is made
that Durand not only issued a writ OF
attachment without requiring either
bond or affidavit, bat that he did so
knowing that no summons in the case
had ever been served upon the de-
PENDANT ZuckSwert. II is also charged
that the Lukes and Kane knew that
; Zuckswert had never been served.
Aug 9. 1906, il is charged that
Francis G.. Luke represented to Joseph
Allsop that he (Luk2) had obtained
from Durand a release of garnishment
! in a case where Allsop was defendant
and w. II. Ferrebee was plaintiff.
when. as a matter of fact, he had not
obtained any such release
Bald Fraud Is Alleged.
Aug 80. 1906. the complaint charges.
all of the defendants represented 60
Lewis H MOshier that a complaint
had been filed against him before Du-
rand by o. G.. Shaw. assignee of c. C.
Sinclair. 1t was also represented 10
Moshier that all steps necessary to OBJ
tain judgment against him had been
) taken.
In this case. too. Durand is accused
Continued on Page 2.