St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-07-11
court and COUNSEL
Get Their Heads Together in
Summing Up the Prem
tiee Case.
Difference of Aspects Between
Courts at Law and at
Equity.
A Despondent Cigarmaker
Ends His Trouble by
Hanging.
Commissioner Lamb Gives
Out Some Comparative
School Figures.

against The Northern Pacific Railroad
ct al. was concluded before Judges
Miller and Nelson yesterday. The in
terest in the argument was as great as
the previous proceedings of the trial.
The scenes between court and counsel
were dramatic at times. When Judge
Miller essayed to speak the long array
of counsel, and several other attorneys
who went there to hear the argument,
would arise and lean forward to catch
every word said. At the opening of
court in the morning Judge Miller Sug-
gested that in the argument he desired
attorneys to discuss the point as to how
far the decisions went in authorizing
the court to modify OF change the de-
scription in deed where the courses in
the description were conflicting. For
instance, if the deed read northeast,
it would follow around the land
to be conveyed, but if it
read northwest, the description
would lead off the land. He said: II
was struck yesterday with the possible
ity OF the whole OF the Armstrong deed
being made harmonious by changing
the east and west lines and by the pos
sibiiity OF placing the land east or west
The argument Of Mr.. Root has not en-
lightened me upon the matter" Judge
Nelson suggested the point as to how
far court of law In an ejectment case
could modify the description in a. deed,
there being no doubt that a court of
equity could do so.
Judge Miller asked discussion on
the point that if the mile square was
west of Minnesota point, would not the
description be correct? He also asked
who the local attorney was who APP
peared with other counsel for Mr.. Prem
tice when the case was tried before
him several years ago in New York
He was informed that Senator Davis
was the attorney referred to. After the
court announced that he desired the
argument to be closed during the day,
General Cole resumed his argument.
He stated that in the trial which took
place in New York, counsel for Premise
had purpoSely refrained from introduce
ing the map of a small lot of ground
from which the starting point in the de.
scription started; counsel bad refrained
from doing so this time until the last
moment, and they seemed afraid to do
50. He asserted that attorneys for
Prentice would not bring a suit in
chancery for the purpose Of correcting
the description in the deed, because
they did not want to raise that point.
but had reSorted to a proceeding On
the law side of the court.
Discussing the point suggest ted by
Judge Miller, he stated no matter
which course-east or west-of the
starting point was taken, the mile
square would not touch the land in con-
troversy. He said that shows why a
bill in equity was not reSorted to for
the purpose of correcting the descrip-
ton in the Armstrong deed.
w. w. BillSon and G. A. Severand
followed General Cole with arguments
in favor of the defense. Judge Dillon,
most able argument in favor of Prem
tice. He was asked several questions
by Judge Miller with view of shorten
ing the argument. and directing it to
the points on which the learned Judge
desired especial discussion. The princi-
pal feature of Jude billions argument
was that Prentice derived title through
Armstrong to one-half interest in what
ever land Indian chief Buffalo acquired
under the treaty of Sept. 30, 1854. He
claimed that Prentice not only was en-
titled to "a specific quantity of land. but
| that ne had the right under his deed to
a conveyance of one-half of the land to
which Buffalo had right to assert title.
| That the deed to Prentice was an as
| signment of the one-half interest Of
Buffalo, and the court had a right TO
| take all parts of the deed into consider
/ alton, and if it could be construed to be
| an assignment OF the right of Buffalo to
| select land, then Prentice should have
| such interest as was intended to be con-
| veyed. If the courses in the deed were
| inconsistent the court could correct or
I disregard them in case the land could
| be located without them by the
| deed. Buffalo undoubtedly had the
| right to select one mile square
| along the shore of st. Louis bay; the
| right to it was conveyed to Armstrong,
| and half of it by him to Prentice. The
| question in this action of ejectment is,
| il there is a mistake in description
| your court would never find that Arm
Strong did not convey the interest
| Buffalo had to half of this land.
| Judge Miller suggested the difficulty
| that in case the court decided to change
! part of the courses in the description
hinging ON the rock, would there be
| enough left to include the land in ques-
ton. Judge Dillon said that Prentice
| was the assignee of Buffalo's right; the
| deeds showed that. The treaty showed
that Buffalo had the right to select the
land. and proceeded to conclude
| the discussion amid Interruptions
by tue court and Gen. Cole. The
| latter asked leave to make an additional
argument, but the court was of opinion
| that it would hardly be fair to give him
another speech in view of the fact that
his side had made two speeches to the
| plaintiffs one, and the latter had the
| right to close the argument.
Judge Miller decided not to take up
another of the Prentice cases at the
| present term, as he would not have
time to devote to another case.