Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1906-07-09

the Church case came up and went q
I the supreme court They examined
the leaders as 20 the purposes Of The
] Church All OF this VIII come On Their
| on the hearing but now we insist that
/ this Church or us trustee shall au'
| sWer'
MR. RICHARDS CLOSES.
In his closing argument Mr. Rich
ards took up the different points made
/ hy Mr. Zane, and answered them in a
/ clear convincing manner. He repudl-
/ atei the lnsinuation that the defend
ants were trying 20 avoid making an
/ answer by shielding themselves behind
q cloud ~ capilous objections He
/ Insisted that the objections which had
been made to the complaint we're nei-
Their captlous nor trivial but were VII
tai IN their nature The court had
/ ruled that the plaintiffs must show in
/ their complaint the terms Of the trust
/ before Il could decide whether or not
/ there had been violation Of the trust
This was a Felf-evdent proposition and
II seemed strange 10 him that counsel
/ for the plaintiffs dld not seem TO reCog-
nizc a. The defendants were insisting.
/ as they had the legal right to do, that
/ the plaintiffs should have a complaint
! in court stating cause OF action
I against them before they should be
/ required 20 answer and % was clearly
apparent from the discussion that The
! complaint under consideration dId not
meet that requirement
ULTIMATE FACTS.
Counsel referred 20 the authorities
cited by the attorney Tor plaintiffs TO
the effect that only ultimate facts need
be pleaded, and admitted that such
was he rule. but said there was a wide
| difference between ultimate facts and
conclusions Of Law He had not OBJ
jected to any fact that had been
pleaded, but maintained that the court
was right ln declaring that ~ Is not
sufficient 10 allegc that certain acts are
unlawful. or that they cannot lawfully
or legally be done. but tho facts from
which such deductions and conclusions
may be reached must be set forth" He
Insisted that the facts showing the
terms ~ the trust should be stated In
the complaint so that the court could
know whether or not there had been
a violation n H. This requirement had
been sedulously avoided by counsel for
the plaintiffs. and his pleading WAS stu
defective IN that particular
As the case now stands Il appears
from the complaint that according 70
a doctrine and rule ~ the church" it's
members arc required 10 pay one-tenth
of their gains and income as tithing.
and that this fund is In the hands of
the defendants Tor Church purposes
II does not appear what tho doctrine
or rule ~ the church Is which requires
the payment Of these tithes. nor the
purposes 10 which they are To he de-
voted Why this important omission.
after the court has said that a know
ledge of the rule is necessary 10 en-
able n TO determine whether p breach
Of duty or failure to perform an ohllga-
ton has occurredT Is II because the
law or rule Of the Church In relation n
tithing II pleaded, would show that
there had been no breach ~ duty or
failure 20 perform any obligation" on
the part NJ the defendants. and that
they were vested With "the discretion
Of determining and directing the man
agement and expenditure Of the tith-
ing
COMMERCIAL STOCKS.
II is alleged that some OF the Church
funds have been invested In The stocks
Of certain commercial and industrial
enterprises, which are named ln IN.
complaint and II Is claimed by counsei
'or the plantifts that these investments
are unlawful and in violation OF public
policy, although there is no law Of the
state prohibiting them. To sustain hi
contention. counsel refers 20 the stat
ute providing for the creation OF Cor
porstions not for pecuniary profit" and
argues that although the Church II
not incorporated, lnasmuch as Il would
have a right TO incorporate under this
statute the latter is a declaration OF
Tho public policy u the state.
The fallacy OF this contention Is ap-
parent when the purpose and scope 81
the statute Is considered Under rs
provisions not only churches but char
liable institutions, educational estab-
llShments. secret societies and Other
kindred associations are entitled 70 In
corporate. II counsel's contention Is
correct. when any OF these unlncorpo-
rated associations invest their funds
IN the stocks Of commercial or in
dusthal enterprises. they commit an
aCt contrary TO public policy. Suppose
Tor example, that some philanthroplst
should conclude 90 establish q law
school or medical college In our midst.
and having selected a board OF trus.
tees. should endow the institution By
transferring 10 the board a million Dol.
lars. II the trustees Of this unincor.
poratCd Institution should conclude TO
invest some Of this money IN the com.
ncrc.al and Industrial enterprises men.
toned iu the complaint. because they
we're paying good dividends which
would afford an income for the main.
ienance of The institution. under The
theory Of counsel such investments
would be contrary 10 public policy. be.
cause this Institution would have fhA
same right. as the Church, 10 mcorpo.
rate under The provisions of the sat.
ute. The proposition is too far-fetches
and lordes too closely upon the ab.
surd 10 be entitled 70 serious considera-
ton.
THE ONLY CASE
Tho only case that has been referred
TO- which, BY any reasonable stretch
~ the imagination can be said 20 sur
port the theory o. counsel T. the case
OF Thompson vs. West. 50 Neb.. eSl.
ana that Is no authority. because thr
question involved IN that case was as 10
The power ~ a church corporation and
nor "a voluntary association. and be
siaes. The uuerauces of the court which
arc relied upon. ore merely dicium and
no Tari ~ the decision o. the case.
In that case a deficiency Judgment
was rendered against the church on
ihe foreclosure OF mortgage. which
had been given Tor the purchase Of
some lots - one Of the trustees. and
Do was held by the court that the In.
doIsemcnt ~ the church was foreign
90 she legitimate objects ~ the corror.
alton. and the contracts relating there.
90 ultra wires and void. After deciding
this question. which disposed a. the
case. the court INDUCED Oh some dictum
io the effect that Il would be against
public policy Tor he churches of tho
a..