Salt Lake City, U. T.
Feb. 13. 1874.
Prest. Brigham Young,
Dear Bro:-
At the request of Bro. Staines, I send herewith a letter, soliciting your signatures thereto, which is copied from the one you gave him last year.
You have been informed by telegrams of the state of the Cook case, but not so explicitly, perhaps, as you ought to be, and, although I feel reluctance in troubling you, I will briefly give you the leading particulars.
Before Mr. Bates left for the east (to sell a mine.) himself and partner, Mr. Sutherland had frequent consultations as to getting the case before the Supreme Court of the Territory, and they finally concluded that it could not be done. I told you what Mr. Bates said, that he thought your Attorneys "by negligence had crucified you in the case." Mr. Sutherland, although delicate about accusing his brother attorneys, especially as he is a stranger here, intimates the same. He is a sagacious, clear headed lawyer, and, apparently, not apt to make mistakes. His only hope of success, is in following out the course you suggested, and a suit was accordingly entered to recover rent from the date of the judgment up to the time of the suit (some time in Dec. last.) amounting to $2890.75/100 This was assigned to John Sharp who attached the judgment, and as our Statute requires that a reason be specified, your attorney alleged that Mrs. Cook had departed from the Country, &c. McKean decided that she had not departed within the meaning of the Statute, and he dissolved the attachment. At this point, Baskin made a mistake, he asked for an order that a new execution be issued against you and a special order was given. Now the fact is, that Baskin could have gone to the clerk and got a new execution without any order, after the attachment had been dissolved, but our Statute provides that an appeal can be taken "from any special order made after the final judgment" and the effect of such appeal is "to stay all further proceedings upon the judgment or order appealed from, or upon matter embraced therein," (See Sec. 344. page 80. Laws of 1870.) To appeal from that special order was rather sharp practice, but justifiable under the circumstances, and Sutherland perfected the appeal and served a notice on the Sheriff to stay the execution, which was obeyed by Dewey notwithstanding the threats of Baskin & Co. McKean's letter to Gen. Morrow intimates that Baskin might proceed as if no order had been issued, and Baskin has done so and furnished Dewey with a new execution. Dewey has been round among the lawyers and says that even Hoge told him he was not warranted in delaying the execution. We think the law is on our side, and if the sheriff will abide the law, and pay no heed to what Attorneys say, the matter is stayed until the Supreme Court sits which is in May. Sutherland expects to gain nothing from the appeal but time, and we may get judgment in our favor in the case of John Sharp vs. Gooke, for rent as alluded to.
Baskin will doubtless go for the Sheriff & McKean may appoint an elisor, but that would have to done in open Court, which does not meet until the 2nd March.
I have carefully consulted Bros. Wells & Carrington in every step that Sutherland has taken, but since Snow and Hoge lost the case, there was very little chance indeed for any lawyer, however skilfull, to do anything more in the premises than what has been done. By advice of Bros Wells & Carrington, (that is, if the sheriff holds out.) Sutherland intends in a day or two, after their rage against the Sheriff shall be cooled, to propose for a fair, amicable adjustment of the entire matter, irrespective of the Court, the settlement to be based upon allowing her a reasonable compensation for improvements, and her paying you a fair rent during her entire occupancy. Such a proposition, whatever other results may follow, must serve to shew a desire to do what is right.
I will not trouble you any further.
May God bless you is my constant prayer. Love to Prests. Smith & John W.
Your Bro. in the Gospel.
D. McKenzie.