The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1889-04-16
sQuATTERs WIH 4 VICTORY.
They Are Enabled 10 Contest Title
With Ar. Denny.
The Case Certified by Justses Rivers
tes csnrt ~ Higher Jaris-
siletioa.

The san2ftersv ns gh1nsTtoxn wen the
arss ruund ia The COATES between A. A
DeRDy and themselves In Justice Rivers
c0Ags. wheg the cess Ia whieh y. r Pnsece
Is Defendant was certified - TIE district
court
when th.s s.ft wzs arsz hrUuxhs ID IN
JEsf5ez Rivers es9szrs- aEsgE- two weeks
ago. Messrx. tshoyz and Dyer moved 20
bare i certified % The district court IS
Sestiee Rivers denied this motion, holding
thai ssstaeacs affecting the title 20 Land
E1zxs Es produced Ia court before he lost
Jurisdiction. The defendants then set AZ
m eaeGzEaeat defense ana answer 20 the
f0rcioBs cusyy aud unlawful desaiaer PRO-
eeesssElsss and the agnf was made on thst
The case was brought Il, issue and the
hearing was really cs1r2 aaenced 81 noon On
Thursday. Twas fought with great deter
nnlnarion and skill by the opposing eoun-
sci for over three days and came 10 con
The defense claimed fhss Mr.. Denny had
lost title - the disputed property, II he
ever had any. by the statute of Hrni tafions;
that the tile wss IN the United States, a.
the land had never been entered, and that
the defendants had as ,aueh right rs any
enc 10 squat n pom the land in hope OF &C
4ufftnE title from the government The
hypothesis Of the defense was, that when
Mr.. Denny took Ep his donation land claim
II tEl2 be chose the table land running
from the bluff, where Front street now L.
back toward Lake Washington, thinking
that the land under the bsaE and along the
shore OF the bsy wss worthless In sup
port OF this they showed by ex-
United states ssgveynr W. 3. Hall
aud other witnesses who saw
the survey made, that the west
line did ran alsng TIE edge OF the bluff
=
not included in Mr.. DsnTyss claim. One
difficulty about settling this point is the
fact that one OF the monuments of the sur
yey was destroyed By the building OF the
San Francisco block on the site IL cecu-
pied. The patent 70 the LAID and deid
notes OF the survey. however, say nothing
about the claim icing bounded on the west
by the meaD9ering line Of Elliott BAY. and
surveyors who have reteHtsyy run the line
Is near as they could By the old field notes
claim thar II runs along the top OF the bluff
and not very far west Of Front street
After al the evidence was heard, Attor-
ney Dyer Egein Gled a motion for the
certifying OF the ease 10 the district court
upon the ground that the title 70 the land
had been brought into question and that
the justice had thereby lost jurisdiction
This motion was opposed by Attorney
Elaine for the plaintiff, and the merits OF
the ease were fully entered into In the dis
cassiou.
Justice Rivers, after hearing the srgn-
fnenfs, said that some very grave questions
concerning Mr.. Denny's title had been
brought np, and therefore he could do
nothing under the Law blt 10 send the
case 20 court having jurisdiction
The Equstters were highly elafea on
hearing this decision. as Ii puts the case
in such shape that they can Eight Mr.
Denny on the question of title. The dis
puted tract consists of about q acres, and
Is estimated TO be worth fully 400 600. and
the case viii be one of the most important
on the docket AZ the next term OF district
court.
Il il hardly probable that the suits Mr
Denny has commenced against the other
squatfers viii be prosecuted in the jas
tees court