Arizona weekly citizen., 1884-05-31
A CELEBRATED CASE.
Decision in the Famous Lord X Williams
 Wood Case

For more than two years the court docket in this county has been burdened with the case of G. Howard Thompson vs. c. P. Dake, and J. w. Evans. The history of the case is about this: In 1881 the firm of Lord X Will hams contracted with the Southern Pacific railroad company to furnish them five thousand cords of wood. They employed men to cut the wood here and there on government land and l' was piled at a side track west of the city known as Lord < Williams Spur. When the firm of Lofd X Williams failed the wood was turned over, on ac- count to G. Howard Thompson the rep resentstive of the Bank of California. The officers of the government, c. P. Dake being United States Marshal at the time, and J. W. Evans his deputy. discovered that the wood had been cut from government land and took charge Of it. Mir. Thompson brought suit in the matter and since 1882 both the goy- ernment and county officials have each had guard at the station and the case has been one of the most important in the courts of thIs county. It was con tlnued from time to time and it began To look as though it would never come 10 trlal. But this term Judge Fitz. gerald stated he wished the docket cleared of these old cases and all par ties being Tn readiness the case was called and went to trial The attorneys Tor the government-Or rather the de- iendants who represented the govern meut In the original action were Col. AaoriskIe, United States Distinct Attor- hey, and Judge AndeIson. Mir. Thomp- son, who was present during the trial was represented by Col. Ben. Morgan. The case was warmly contested and occupied the atten ion of the count for several days. The arguments were con. cluded last evening and the case given to the jury. When the arguments were completed Judge Fitzgerald charged the jury as follows:
 The court char yes the jury that if they find from the evidence that the title and the right to the possession of the wood 1T. that the ownership and right to the pos session thereof was not in the United States, then you will find for the plain tiff.
 The court instructs the jury that if they believe from the evidence that the wood Tn controversy was cut while growing upon the vacant non-mineral lands of the United States. and that the ha ant . written authority from a competent ot- ticer, and for the use of the navy of the United States, then the plaintiff derived said wood from the United States, and they should find for the defendant.
 Purchasers of timber cut from land are bound to know that they who as- sume to sell them the timber had the right to do so, and if they did not, the purchasers are liable to the lawful owner of the timber trees for its value, and If the trees are cut up into cora wood, said cord wood IS the property of the owner of the land as much as the trees were. and the owner of the land is entitled to recover the value of the timber in its new form; in other words, the cord wood or the value thereof.
 
 that they have nothing whatever to do with the kind of wood cut from the vacant non-mineral public land of the United States. It Is sufficient for the purposes of this case that the wood in controversy, whatever its description or character, or by whatever name 1t was known, was cut from said land without legal and competent authority, and 1t IS of no consequence whether the timber was fit for naval or building purposes, or not.
 If the Jury find that the wood in ques- tion was the property of the United States, Bad that the defendants took and held possession of the same on behalf of the United States and their action ID the premises was authorized or ratified by the United States then the posses sion Of the defendants was lawful pos session and you should find for the defendants.
 After the jury had been out till nearly II o'clock last night they brought m verdict for the defendants and thus ended one of the most important clvIl cases entered upon the court docket of Pima county.