Iowa territorial gazette and advertiser. [volume] (Burlington, Iowa Territory [Iowa]) 1840-1846, 1845-05-24


teareesss and having no interes
lSa1s.
: sedsss ,hen proved that he settled
- lasd 10 controversy in 1888. had
;morovemenis on il and had held
..saien ever since.
n1.pdsat then offered to show { re.
IN derived interest in the Hall
lands from Mama tau pus, !
az Breed Of the Sac and Fox nation.
=. he evidence being insufficient to
-, Va rsa tau psss Half Breed. the
f.,.r, refused 10 suffer the deeds 10 be
r..d in evidence. 81
nrfendsn, then offered 10 prove that
= service OF process and no notice by
,.,Alics,ion lad been made or given in
4. sui,s Us Owners OF Half Breed
.,sa,.' wherein The judgments were
.s.dsfed under which The sale 10 Reid
- made. The Court held the testi-
.-..y iaadmissible. Aud refused pee.
..;..;oa 10 defendant, to show tina, Reid,
~ plsia,if. was Counsel and procured
- Judgment.-shat the Judgments
ee.e on fictitious demands-,hal Web.
~ and the Owners Of Half Breed
lssds we're prevented from appearing
,ad defending said suits.
The cours further decided that Web
.,er had NO right to show tina. the sale
% Reid was never made by Taylor. a.
sheriff Of Lee County. and that the re.
turns ON The Executions we're fraudu.
len, and false.
Defendant then attempted to show
the i,Ie % the land to be out Of the
ol.iplG, Reid, and offered TO show q
sale Of the Half Breed Lands for Tax.
q, and deed Of convey ance Cor The
came 10 r. F. Barrett, dated Sep. 9Th
lsll. The Court refused to receive a
copy Of the deed, the defenGan, having
shown no diligence in procuring The
original from DR. Bsrrsll.
Oefendan, then offered to show by
he Records Of the Lee District Court,
skatlie Half Breed lands had been par.
s;sioned among the several owners by .
dreree If sand Court. previous TO the
s.Is By Sheriff TO pIain,iff. The Cours
kM he ses,imoMy irrelevant aud it was
seieesed.
Defendan. offered 10 prove by prac.
isd Surveyor that il The Northern
lsndary line Of the Half Breed Trac,
" run due Eas, from the point on the
Des Moines river. where The Missouri
Northern boundary line strikes the
same. il would not include the land in
controversy.
The Court refused to receive The tes
dnony because:
Isl. II the landin controversy, at the
time Of the sale TO the plaintiff, was
wi,hin and par. Of what was then com.
usnly called and known as the Half
Breed Tract. il was irrelevant, to show
whether due Eas. line 10 the Missis
sippi would include il or not.
ID. Il was incompetent TO show any
other Northern boundary line Of the
Half Breed Trac. than that fixed by
The Act Of Congress, Approved June
18th. 1914 which established The line
and marked ny Jcn,fer T..
sprigg. in the years l632-'33; as the
.orrecs Northern buunnary Of said
Tract.
The defence having rested. the Cour,
instructed the jury on The Law as sppli-
rable 10 the facts in The case. The jury
retired, and after an absence Of ten MN
u'es returned with a verdic, for the
plaiafiE
Counsel f"r piain,iff-H ". Starr,
fyrs Waiker, aud o. II. Brown.
Ing.
Counse. for desendant-J. C. Hall
and d. +. Miller.
The trial IL this cause occu pied four
days. In empannelling Jury. all per-
soas residing and claiming land on The
Half Breed 1rac, were challenged for
rsaee by the plaintiff, and The chal-
enses were allowed by the Court, the
jurnrs being Interested in the event of
he Suit. Eierea Jurors of the regular
pannei were passed upon and sworn;
each party having exhausted all Tie
peremp,ory challenges allowed by law,
agreed that the cause should be tried by
HE Jury Of eleven.