The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1906-10-18
TRUST IS LOSER
IN FIRST ROUND
Thomas Homer's Complaint Is
Held Good by Judge
Morse.
ACTION IS BROUGHT TO
ANNUL NEW FRANCHISE
Utah Light and Railway Com
pany Must Answer
Complaint.

The light trust has lost in the first
round of the action filed by the State,
ex rel Thomas Homer, against the
Utah Light and Railway company ana
Salt Lake City, TO annul the franchise
granted by the city 10 the light trust,
and to prevent the city from carrying
out it's portion Of the contract,
The basis of the suit was that Mayor
Morris and eight members Of the Ilty
Council were members OF the Mormon
church. and, as such. were Interested IN
the franchise granted to the light trust,
because of the fact that the church
owned n large part of the stock of the
Utah Light and Railway company =
The matter, IL will be remembered,
was before the court prelimInarily some
months ago, when II was discoNered
that the franchise granted inc trust
prevented the city from MODIFYING the
franchise in any way, upon penalty
of surrendering 10 the light trust ccr-
tain lands and rights in Big Cottonwood
CANYON. together with any improve.
ments that the city might have placed
thereon. When this discovery was
mnde-aud it was made by The tribune
the clause WAS changed, :" that the
city viii be protected.
The case came before rhe JUDGE
Wednesday on demurrer 20 the
complaint, which set out that tho
complaint did not state facts sutlicient
to constitute n clause of action, ana
that Mr. Homer had no right 10 bring
the action as relator for the state.
The demurrer was overruled by Judge
Morse his decision being as follows;
Decision Of Court.
II THE DISTRICT COURT or SALT
Lake county. Utah. Thomas Homer. etc,
plaintiff, salt Lake City ct al, defendants-
Decision,
In the case of the State Of Utah. at the
relation OF Thomas Homer, against salt Lake
plant has been argued and submitted
II IL alleged in the complaint IN this csSe
that the Church OF Jesus Christ Of Latter1
day Ssints is a voluntary association OF in
dividualS organized. among other things. Tor
the purpose Of engaging in commercial pur
suits that the defendants, X. ;. Wells. W :.
J. Tuddenham, Il +. Barnes, J. IL Preece
i. 5. Fernstrom, +. II. Davis. +. j. Hewlett.
members Of the City Council Of Salt Lako
City. and Il. p. Morris, Mayor OF Salt Lake
City. wcro members oil this association. ane
such were cO-parinsrs with all the ether
members of said association; that said asso-
Ciation was engaged largely in commercial en-
terprises by and through Joseph /. Smith.
rs trustee in trust for the said association !:
that the said trustee holds and controls and
has the legal title to part Of tho stock of
the Utah Light and Railway company, which
is held for tho benefit OF tho members CO.
partners nj said church, including the defend
nnts above named; that the City Council Of
Salt Lake City. at the dates mentioned in the
complaint. consisted Of fifteen members; that
on the fourth day of August. 1905. the said
Council granted 20 tho Utah Light and Rail-
way company valuable franchise. that the
sAld franchise was granted by the vote OF
eight Of the members Of said Council; that
among tho eight voting FOR said franchise.
were the seven members above named, and
their votes were necessary for the adoption
OF the ordinance granting said franchise: aud
that by said action the said defendants grant
ed 10 association OF which they. were mem
bers. and IN which they were co.partuers, this
franchise in which they had direct pccu-
mary and valuable interest: mud from these
facls n is contcnded that the grant Of such
franchise ID void.
am Of tho opinion that this contenticn
is well founded.
II is, however, contended on behalf Of the
defendants that the pantiG merely ss q resi-
dent taxpayer has no capacity 70 maintain
and prosecute in the name OF the State az re-.
latter. this action. ! am OF the opinion that
under the procedur" aG established in this
state. tho plnlntin may prosecute as rclaior
in the name Of tho State such an aSfiou The
demurrer 10 the complaint. therefore must
be overruled, and the defendant, will he
given twenty days to answer.
Sanford Represents Homer.
Allen T. Sanford represented Mr..
Homer upon the argument of the de-
murrer, and will now push the case to
final issue as rapidly as the court
calendar will Dermit