The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-02-14
CONTEMPT CASE
IS DISMISSED
Judge Marshall Says Mrs.
Walker Removed None of
Estate From Utah.
HOLDS SECURITIES SHOULD
HAVE BEEN ENUMERATED
Bank Responsible to Estate for
Money Withdrawn; Note Not
Taken From State.

In a written decision rendered Monday
by Judge John A. Marshall in the United
States district court the order was dis
missed against Mrs. Althea Walker 10
show cause why she should not be pun
isheI for contempt OF court by removing
from the state securities amounting to
81 500. 900 belonging to the estate OF
David f.. Walker, her dead husband. IN
violation of court Injunction.
In deciding in favor OF Mrs. Walker.
Judge Marshall based his opinion strictly
in accordance with law, thus eliminating
consideration of a part of the evidence
taken at the hearing upon which the
The affidavit Of Fl. w. Walker. upon
which the order to show cause was based,
was taken as the preliminary charge and.
according to Judge Marshall. should have
teen removed in violation OF the injunc-
ton.
The list included in the affidavit OF
Walker did not mention a number OF
articles which were enumerated In the
hearing. Judge Marshall ignored all tes-
timony relating TO the removal OF prop
6avjt, This reduced the list TO two arti-
Cles.
Bank Liable to Estate,
One was sum OF s202,Io on deposit
a, Walker Bros. bank. which was part
Of the estate and was drawn by Mrs.
Waiker Judge Marshall says that Mrs.
Walker was not authorized to get the
money from the bank, and that institu-
for that amount. The other article was
the note OF j. P. Megeath for $4,000.
Iudse Marshall Says this was not ye-
moved from the state. as was shown by
the testimony
In the decision. Judge Marshall saws:
This report OF the master is not con-
sd ,,..l, i.,N1 ..ft t1,ri u,
junction alleged in the affidavit OF II w.
Walker, the basis OF the proceeding. but
deals at length with certain claimed vio-
,ations of the Injunction first disclosed
by the cXanination Of Mrs. Aithea Wal
EeT before him. and over the objection OF
counsel for % the respondent"
10 show the legal procedure in such con-
Tempt proceedings, showing that the re-
spondent is required only to make an
swer 10 the charges made in the prelim-
mary charge essential TO a support Of an
order to show cause
Injunction General
The result is" says Judge Marshall.
that Of the facts found by the ma ster, it
Ing on the. charges contained in the afr
devit of II. W. Walker. The injunction
itself was IN terms OF exceeding generali-
strued the injunction against the remov-
Ing OF the property 10 apply only TO a
removal beyond the Jurisdiction OF the
position
The findings of the referee are so
clearly insufficient 10 establish violation
OF the Injunction with respect to the
property specifically described in the af-
rdavir Of II. w, Walker. with two ex-
ceptions 10 be hereafter noted. that 1t is
lions; The first is the sum OF about $500
which was on deposit In the bank of
Walker Brothers to the credit of D. F
Walker at the time of his death.
A 10 THIS the referee finds. Da yid
walker died about September II. 1910.
AT the time OF his death he had s2o2 7s
this city, The money was withdrawn by
Mrs. Althea Walker September IS. 1910
Not Within Jurisdiction.
rms withdrawal. continues Judge
Marshall. was two days before the issi-
Ing OF the injunction referred TO- There
is no finding that any part OF this money
was in the hands Of Althea Walker when
the injunction was served. but il it be
and all of Il was thereafter removed be-
yond the Jurisdiction of the court, what
is the .ads result; zu The bank owed d. r Wal
debt could only be discharged by a pay
ment to the duly appointed and uuaiIfied
representative of his estate. No such
undertook to pay II TO the respondents
doubtless believing that she would stand
between Il and IT'S liability to the admin
Is clear that the PLAINTIFF and such ad
rninistrator have nothing to do with the
money SO paid, and the claim of the es-
tate against the bank is in no way af-
fected by II. II was not a case OF nav
ment to person in fact unauthorized We,
purporting TO act for some other person
in which case such other person may rat.
ily the transa ction, Here Mrs Walker
claimed the money in her own right and
entered into no obligation 10 nav n ove
to the administrator with the will an
nexed suose9yently TO be appointed. The
iSdiction. '
Megeath Note.
The next item is charged as a note
OF j. +. Megeatk for $4,000. and IL Is
averred that this note was obtained by
b. u Rayoould on an order given by the
the state Of Utah at her instance and
request. 1t appears that the note haf
not been removed from the state OF Utah
s ept n1i vas placed a,r In a safety deposit. bos
led that the evidence tends strongly tc
show an intention to conceal the NOE IN,
$4,000, and assuming without dccidins
that the respondent was enjoined from &c
doing. we are met by the fact that she
was charged with removing II from Tho
state Of Utah; and the finding is con.
oh .rary, IL ma may be that II she had beer
have shown that the transaction wa,
attended with. such publicity as to
have enectually rebutted that claim
resulted from the fact that she was no;
legally called on to meet the conren.
lion or concealment. and In this view al
Ine law 1 concur; Proof without aver.
ment Is as Intellectual as avernnent With
out proof.
1T follows that the order to show caus.
mus must be -, disehharged: sh and the compensa
at $50, must be paid by the plaintiff."
R00TRLACKS FIGHT Ann