Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1879-11-25
THE WOOD RANCH BATTLE,
Tragic End of Robert Brown and John
Chamberlain.
Evidence Adduced Before the Cor
oner's Jury.
Efforts 20 Unravel a Tangled skein.
conflicting Atatemenfs Concerning
n Affair.

" ldnSltu ohtlu'
Conflicting Atatemenfs Couceruiu-
the Affair.
From the time when Assessor Mig re-
ceived a dispatch ON Saturday evening,
stating that Boil Brown and John Cham
berlain lay dead at shipley's ranch, until
the present time, the interest and excite
ment aroused by the desperate fight and
tragic death Of the two men have in no
wise abated. Both were SO well known in
the community, and both having many
friends among our best citizens, the affair,
aside from the cool bravery displayed and
the terrible sequel to the whole trouble,
was calculated to arouse their partisans,
who for two days have defended their re-
speetive friends, aud vehemently asserted
that the blame lay at the door of the other
party.
Aside from the sworn evidence Of Grant
and Mckenzie, who were with Chamber
lain, there il nothing from which to CLEAN
the truth, save from the records Of the Dis
trict Court, and the conflicting statements
of the friends Of the dead men.
Cause Of Difficulty.
The wood ranch on which the fight
occurred adjoins what is known as Ship
ley's hay ranch, now owned by a gentle
man named Hill, who resides in San Fran
cisco. A man named Patrick Dougherty
built a cabin on the disputed ground some
time ago, and Chamberlain, it appears,
was engaged in hauling wood from it at the
time OF D~ougherty's occupancy Of the
cabin. AT this period, as ever since,
Chamberlain was in charge of the Shipley
ranch, aud looking after the interests of
Mr.. Hill. Several parties attempted to
jump portions Of the wood ranch, and
were invariably driven off by CHAMBERLAIN.
D~ougherty, who evidently believed that his
residence entitled him to possession, at last
realized the fact that his claim would be
contested, and SO on the 18th day OF last
August, through his attorney, Hon. Geo.
W. Baker, filed the following
Complaint:
Patrick Dougherty VS.. John Chamber
lain, George A. Hill, VIM. Farran, John
Doe and Richard Roe.
The plaintiff complains of the above
named defendants, and alleges:
That the defendants, John Doe and Rich
ard Roe, herein designated, are fictitious
names, and that the real names Of said de-
PENDANTS are unknown to plaintiff, but
prays when the real names of said de-
PENDANTS be ascertained that they be herein
inserted.
That the plaintiff is, and at all the times
and dates hereinafter mentioned, was the
owner Of, and is now the owner Of, and is
entitled to the possession Of that certain
wood and timber ranch, situated in Eureka
county, State Of Nevada, and bounded and
particularly described as follows: Here
follows a description of the ranch);
That while the plaintiff was SO the owner
Of and in possession, aud entitled to the
possession Of said above described premi-
SEES, on or about the 7th day of July, 1879.
the said defendants %wrongiully and unlaw-
fully entered into and upon said premises,
aud wrongfully and unlawfully ousted aud
elected the plaintiff therefrom. aud still
wrongfully and unlawfully withhold the
possession thereof from the plaintiff, to
his damage in the sum Of $500
Wherefore, the plaintiff demands judg-
ment against the defendants for the posses-
sion Of said premises, and the sum of $500
for the use and occupation thereof by the
defendants, aud for the costs Of suit.
This, in legal p~ariance, was an applica-
tion for a writ Of ejectment, in which
Browns name does not appear. Had a
verdict been rendered in favor Of ths plain
tiff, Chamberlain would have been prevent
cd from trespassing on the premises and
Dougherty's title would. consequently. have
. bean valid Indna RtxAs mad. a pap.nnal
inspection Of the properly previous to pass
ing judgment. and found that neither had
complied with the law, and that there was
no traceable fence, or boundary, on the
property. The writ Of ejectment WAS,
therefore, refused.
The result Of this decision was to leave
the property absolutely without an owner.
subject to be taken up by any one who saw
at to comply with the United States stat
utes. This, 1t is claimed, WAS the opinion
Of the lawyers who were engaged as coan-
sci on both sides, although the Judge con-
lined himsel! simply to rejecting the writ.
Dougherty and Flynn Immediately start
cd for the ranch, travelling all night, and
at once proceeded to enclose the ranch with
q brush fence. Brown went down the fol-
lowing day, but did not remain over "a
hours, and it ia ~presumable that a partner
ship had been formed between himself and
Dougherty. Whether or not Chamberlain
imagined that the refusal Of the Court TO
elect him gave him possession, will remain
a mystery, but he made no attempt to take
possession, or TO even visit the ranch until
a week ago, although the decision OF the
Court was given October I'd.
FIynn's story.
Pat Dougherty, in the meantime, had
- ~.-~l ~ AZ a,va,nnor - with one Of
Browns teams, and is now acting in that
capacity, and is at the Willows. He had
left the ranch in charge Of Joseph Flynn,
whose statement must now be given, TO
convey a clear and connected account Of
| the occurrence.
Flynn has not testified, but in an inter-
view held with him in the County Jail yes
terday, he averred that one week ago,
| Chamberlain, in company with a man named
Farran, rode up to him. as he was engaged
loading wood, and Chamberlain roughly
told him to take his wood aud team off
the place, accompanying his demand with
threats as to the consequence, should he re-
fuse to do so. Farran, Flynn states, was
armed with a double-barreled shotgun, and
acted as though prepared to execute any
order Chamberlain might give. lie imme-
diately left the place, auu uispatSHe"
| messenger to Brown and Dougherty, with
a statement Of what had occurred.
A Cool Proceeding.
Dougherty was absent when the news ar
rived, and Brown proceeded to AXE steps
for the recovery q the property. and with
the characteristics Of an impetuous and
brave man, he determined to take the law
in his own hands. Whether he was the
owner Of the property is still an open ques-
t,on, but none will deny that he conscien.
tiously believed he was. His actions proved