The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1906-09-09

as as oaoh of the anid defendants then and
there we'll knew the said Charles F. Durand
oid not and could not have jurisdiction OF
The said cases that certain cases had been
rled and commenced in the aforesaid court
when in truth and in fact, each Of tho
dciendnnts then and there well Erew no
such oasos had ever been fled or COM
menoed in the aforesaid court; that actions
which had been commenced in said court had
been dnly dismissed in said court whom in
ruth md in fact, each of the defendants |
thcn and there well know, said actions had |
rot been dismissed, that proper nffdavits
and sufficient undertakings had been made |
and nled in certain in said court for |
The purpose OF issuing wrts OF attn nehment |
and writs OF garnishucnt thereon. whom In
ruth and in fact as the defendants and each |
OF them thcn nnd there we'll know, such |
nTridavitS ond such undertn kings had been |
msde and 6lcd that judgment in certain |
cases had boon according 20 law obtained in |
judgments, MS tho defendants then and thcro |
we'll know, had not been so obtained; thnt
certain writs had been duly signed and is
sued by the said Charles f. Durnnd JUS |
tice OF the Peace aforesaid, whom in truth |
and in fact no such writs had been duly |
signed and issued by tho aforesaid Charles
7 Durand.
Filed Complaint.
And acting in pursuance OF the said
spiracy. tho defendants. Francis g. Luke,
James A. Luke and Thomas Kane, on or
as attorneys, pretended To Gle and did file |
with the aforesaid Charles +. Drrand as |
Justice Of the Peace in and for said city OF |
Murray, county ond State aforesaid. n Ger. !!
tain complaint wherein one. A. MAYER. was
alleged to be plaintiff, and one, w. +. Olson, |
wss alleged to bo defendant. and the said
Charles F. Durand acting in furthcrance OF |
said conspiracy did then and there take
jurisdiction OF tho aforesaid cause each of
The defendants then and therc we'll knowing
that the said Charles F. Durand had not
jurisdiction according to law in said case
md acting IN furthersnce of said conspiracy.
me said defendant. Charles T. Durand, as
Ins fira NJ Of he cojI
2sth day OF January, A. D. 1906. issue a writ
of alta techment in said case, there being then
and there no afidavit as REQUIRED by law
and there being then and there no proper
undertaking as required by law mado or fled
in said action previous TO the issuing OF said
writ and the said defendants, acting in fur.
therance OF said conspiracy. did then and
there attempt TO collect the amount claimed
10 be due in said complaint from said w. F,
Olson; and acting IN furtherance Of said con
spiracy the said defendant, Charles F. Du.
rand, about the 9Th day OF March, A.
D. 1906, as Justice Of tho Peace aforesaid,
The aforesaid action, But instead of dis.
missing said action said defendant, Charles
F. Durand, acting in furthernnce of said con.
A. D. 1906, entered Judgment in fnvor OF the
2laintif In said action, and Immediately
,heresftss iasued execution, against the said
urther,nes os said eonspiracy, con @ 't Attempted to to
,nforos and collect said Judgment, and act. I
ng in furtheraaee Of said conspiracy the !
3sid defendants. ants Francis e. Luke James A. {
I4th day Of March, A D. 1906, as attor.
aeya. pretended to Ale and did hle with the :
'foresaid Charles T, Durand, as Justice of
ne Peace aforesaid, certain complaint .
shessin one B. F. Reich was alleged to be I
'!aintiT, and one A. B. Pitts WAS alleged 10 I
'e defendant. and the said Charles A. Durand, +
citing IN furtheranoe OF said conspiracy, did I
hen and thero take jurisdiction OF the r
aid case. each Of the defendants then and !
here well knowing. that the said Charles ;
:. Durend did not have jurisdiction accord.
ns 20 law Of the case aforesaid, and acting
a furtherance OF said conspiracy the said q
Jharles Durand, as Justice OF the Peace d
ssue writ OF attachment In said case. there /
cling then and there no affidavit as required /
" law On which to issue said writ OF at I
aehment, and there being then and there no Z
roper undertaking as required by law made v
nd filed In said action previous to the issu~ 4
ng OF said writ OF attachment, and the said {
id then and there sttempt to collect the
mount alleged to be due in said complaint
ron, the said A. B. Pitts.
In Furtherance of Conspiracy. +
,ansv And acting S ~ frrsherPos Of said
ames 4. Luke and Thomas Kane, on or about +
he 18th day Of March. A. D. 1908, as at. J
prneys, pretended to ale and did hle with Il
I the s, Peace Aforesaid, complaint wherein +
4 aln.id z. and ono John Walsh Vas alleged
and acting In furtherance of said conspiracy h
aen and there did take Jurisdiction OF said s.
ase, each Of the said defendants then aud T
, Dursnd did not have jurisdiction accord p
ng to law Of the case aforesaid. and acting II
2 f9rthera1ee Of said conspiracy, the said +,
harles F; Durand az Justice Of the Peace G
foresaid did on the said 18th day of March L
,sue writ Of attachment in said case b
';us here being then and there no affidavit as @
{ attachment, and there being then and s
here no proper undertaking as required by Il
wv made or fled in said action previous to n
'sning said writ Of attachment, and the said Il
eiendants In furthernnce OF said conspiracy b
i'd then and there attempt TO collect from S,
ae said John Walsh the amount alleged to a
OF said conspiracy the said de. "a
.ndants Francis G. Luke. Thomas Kane and II
ssries 1 r Dgrand md on or about the 9th day d
Ant to one William Hobbs that Judgment a.
I'D been obtsined against the said William d
.obbs before one J: P. Mcom,e. Justice of Of
ounty Of Salt Lake, State Of Utah, the 81
aid CHARLES 2. Durand being then and there c.
,e successor Of the said j. p. Moomie as o.
Sander Lyon and D. o. Richardson as Lyon IL
SiShardson yer were alleged TO be plaintiffs ],
nd the said William Hobbs was alleged to is
said conspiracy the said Charles F. Dursnd 81
!, 1rsaee OF TIE Peace aforesaid, on the lie
sid SUI aey OF June, A D. 1906, did issue | q,
. execution against the said William Hobbs IT
nd the said defendants did then and there et
tternPt to collect the amount alleged 10 pi
ave ave been obtained in said judgment; and {
citing IN furthersnce OF said conspiracy the n,
aid Francis G. Luke. james A. Luke and RI
homns Kane on or about the Both day Of | b,
uly, A. D. 1906, did pretend and represent to SI
ne Al IucksweIt that complaint had been st
uly made and fled before the said Charles m
:, Durend, Justice Of the Peace as afore- | e,
sid, IN certain cose In which Charles Fl,
.eritage. was alleged TO be plaintiff and the
foreshid AL. Zuckswcrt was alleged to be | d
ie defendant and that raid case was then
I'd there pending before the said Charles
, Durand, that summons had been duly 4 vi
srved upon the aforesaid Al Zuckswert as
efendnnt In snid action and that jude.
TENT hnd been obtained against the said al
uckswsrt In said action for the er,ount Ell.
,,ged TO be due in said complaint and that S.
II steps necessary to obtaining proper judg.
ient against said AL. 1uckswert had been
uly performed. and acting in furtherance OF no
ala conspiIIaey rae said Charles F; Durand as al
ustlce OF the Peace aforesaid did then and D
writ of in s.;d ~.ro | -