The Milan exchange. (Milan, Gibson County, Tenn.) 1874-1978, 1877-12-20

and have sworn that they learned of hi
marriage with this woman, and after
wards heard from him that he had part
ed from her. That he came to Buch
anan county, Mo, after parting from
her, remained for some time and re
married there, and died in 1852, some
where near the present site of Marys
vile, Kansas, while on his way to Ore,
gOn, and not in 1874, as stated by Mrs
Brown.
Shortly after Mrs. Brown settled up
on these lands an action of ejectment
was begun against her in Jefferson
County by one Abel Belmarde who
claimed to be maternal cousin of Loui:
LaVenture. This case was tried twice
i'll Jefferson County and appealed to the
Supreme Court, where the decree was
reversed. See Brown VS.. Belmarde,
Kan, AZ. The parties afterwards com
promised, each taking half of the land
and the persons now in possession, some
ten or twelve in number, derive theiI
titles from one or the other of these oc.
cUpants.
A vast quantity of testimony as to the
identity of the LaVenture proof of pedi.
gree, ETC., has been introduced and has
brought to the surface long series OF
entertaining facts preserved solely by the
memory of old men. Taken together
it presents graphic pic.
ture of the rude frontier
life among the Indians; of the days
when a few adventurous white men
penetrated these almost UNEMPLOYED
wilds, to live among the .avages, to
trap and hunt, and after a year or two
to return to St Louis with tlotilla OF
canoes laden with peltry, the fruit of
their perilous industry. There appear
ed upon the witness stand well pre-
served relic of these times in the person
of Cyprian Chouteau, seventy-fve years
of age. His father, Pierre Chouteau,
who settled in st. Louis in 1868, had
seen the great chief Pontiac. Here
was visible living link connecting the
present time with the remote epoch of
the French-Indian war. The testimony
of steamboat captains and pilots, and
of the old French resident of st. Louis,
who but for such use would be thought
to lag superfuous on the stage of our
busy modern life, was brought in in the
form of dispositions, some of which con-
sumed several hours in the reading.
On behalf of the defendants, num-
Der of tax deeds were introduced, in
volving some very nice and important
questions of law. AS there was no con-
troversy as to the facts of these deeds,
the questions arising out of their admis-
sibility were reserved by the court for
further argument. The jury went out
on Saturday evening, and on Sunday
morning returned a verdict for the
plaintiff. This is q case which Illus
trates in large degree on both sides
the patient and tireless research re-
quired in an important lawsuit. The
case was commenced by Major John S.
Wilson, of Lawrence, Kansas, who has
devoted over two years of time
to collecting the evidence and the
preparation of the case. 1t is
a monument to his industry and
patience rs a lawyer. He was ably as
sisted in the trial and argument of the
case by Capt. George r. Peck, w. w.
Nevison, Esq, of Lawrence, and w. p.
Douthitt, Esq, of this city. Capt. Peck
made the opening argument, and Mr..
Nevison summed up for the plaintiff. A.
L. Williams, Esq, had the management
of the defense, which contested every
inch of debatable ground, and seemed
to have been as formidably prepared as
the plaintiff, in the matter of testimony.
He was ably sustained by John Martin,
John Guthrie, and l.. Macarthur, Esqs.
The questions involved in the tax titles
have not yet been argued