The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1906-10-27
GRANTS NON-SU|T
FOR HULAN|Sk|
Judge Howell Decides Against
Skeen Contention in CeIe-
brated Case.

The case of ]. D. Skeen against County
Attorney L. T. Hulaniski, brought to Sc
cure his removal from office for alleged
neglect of duty, came to an abrupt end
in the Second district courc yesterday
rocn, when Judge ]. Albert Howell hand
ed down a decision granting non-sui1,
as moved for by the defendant after the
PLAINTIFF had rested his case the day
previous
At the very outset the court says:
THE plaintiff has introduced evidence
establishing beyond question all the for
NAL allegations of the complaint, and also
evidence tending, in greater or less de-
gree. to sustain the charges of neglect
of duty against the defendant, and has
rested his case.
''Inasmuch as the character Of proof
as TO these various charges differs ma
terially the court will consider them sep
arately, and inaSmuch as the degree OF
proof of these various charges varies, the
court will depart from the order III the
complaint and accusation, considering
first those which are sustained by no
evidence at ALL then those sustained by
only slight evidence, and finally those
which are sustained by the most salts
factory evidence"
The case has been before the court all
week. Special attention was gwen 10 the
case On account of the defendant oelllS
the Republican candidate Tor SttstS Sella-
tor and the plaintiff the Democratic NOM
irCe for county attorney. Politically the
case was significant, and it is a question
whether the granting of the non-sult was
not more against the Republicans than
for them. In the accuSGt tons filed by
Mr.. Skeen there were twenty SUBDIVISIONS,
in which were stated as many grounds
of removal from office The allegations
had mainly to do with the allowing Of
alleged illegal claims presented by Jo-
seph Stanford chairman of the board or
county commissioners, by the board. The
fact that the county attorney did not
prevent the allowing of these claims. nor
seek to recover the respective amounts
after the CLAIMS had been allowed ard
P9id, was charged The evidence sub
mitted was mostly documentary Chair
man Stanford, when placed upon the
stand, refused to answer all questions.
en- the ground that he might incriminate
himself. David MattSon Is the only Wit
case. Mr.. Mattson is county clerk ard
likewise county auditor. He testified un-
der oath that he had called the atten-
tlOn of the county attorney TO the claims
or Mr. Stanford. which he thought to be
Illegal but that even then 10 attention
was paid 10 the matter and the claims
were allowed.
Much attention was given to Mr.. Matt
sons testimony by the court. who also
Gweit at length upon the duties falling
upon the county auditor. \ number OF
the charges were taken up separately by
the court and after citing these alleged
Illegal appropriations he held that there
was no evidence introduced in support
o. the allegation except the claim itself,
or that there was no evidence introduced
to support the charge that the defendant
well knew that the services were not rem
dered or that they constituted an improp-
or charge against the county at the time
of its presentation and allowance. In
another instance the court holds that
there must have been a mistake made in
the date of a charge. the accusation read
ing 1905 and the bill or claim 1906.
During the trial one of the things ruled
out by the court was when Attorney j.
" Kimball, for Mr.. Skeen. introduced a
bill from a local livery charging 81 for
livery hire in taking several of the COM
missioners to the poor farm. The date
Tor this service was April Il, 1905. For
the same date the county records snow
that Mr.. Stanford presented and was al
lowed $3.50 for trip to the poor farm,
for actual and necessary travelling ex-
penses.
Mr.. Skeen stated after the decision of
Juoge Howell yesterday that he was not
at all surprised that the non-Sut had
been granted. but that he had rather eX-
pected il. He said. however. that the
matter would not rest with this decision
and that ne would take other steps. 1T
Is considered more than likely that Mr..
Skcen Will therefore file other charges or
file similar complaint against the cOun-
~ attorney at once.