Indian chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1882-1902, 1891-04-09

AIAAl Ollt VI WV VI tAif oANtH
asked ME on the street what | was
going to do in the matter; said
they had seen Barnes in my ctiice,
etc, but | gave them no definite
and the case went on TO the
third calling. But when this time
came and under the ordinary rules
the plaintiff should have had the
judgment by default, Mr.. Trott
CD became suspicious that there
might be "a bug under the chip"
and 10 save the condemnation that
would necessarily fall on the clerk
of Cooweescoowee district, the
case was dismissed and Mr. Keys
was advised to return the bill of
sale to Mrs. Lowrey and let her
institute the proceedings Here.
upon Sarah Lowrey filed an afiida-
Wit showing: 1st, the lease as
aforesaid and then in regular form
setting out that on or about the
Goth day Of Oct, 1890, she was
the lawful owner of and in posses
sion Of the said Barnes place and
that Albert Cooper entered upon
said premises and took possession
without her consent, wherefore she
asked on her own behalf and as
natural guardian for Austin Low
rey's minor heirs that writ Of
cjectment be issued. While this
case should have been treated as the
farce that it was, Mr.. Barnes saw
proper to answer and did answer.
On the day of trial, Mrs. Low
rey did not appear, but her fright
hand bowcr,n Mr.. Keys, was"thar"
aud so was II. II. Trot(O apd
Clerk Trott. No attempt was
made to prove that Sarah Lowrey
was ever in possession of the place;
no attempt was made to show
that she was the owner or that she
had any right in law or equity TO
the possession further than that
she was the wife of Austin Lowrcy
but on cross examination Of de-
PENDANTS witness, under a biased
ruling Of the court and over tho
protest OF the defendant, the said
lease was proven. Nor did it stop
here, for it was further shown
that under contract with Sarah
Lcwrey CATER the death of Austin
LoNrey) that in consideration Of
certain work to be done on Mrs.
Lowrey's home place by said
Cooper, she agreed to let Cooper
remain on the Barnes place for
three years longer (this is part Of
the testimony that Trott(?) worked
on, in his imagination, to extend
the time to fifteen years on the
lease.)
Since this decision has become
famousC?) | have heard some say
it is n righteous one. To such
men l say, "ifyou say it for a pur-
pose, well and good, but if you say
it becauae you believe it to be true,
then get thee to the cradle, for
thou art a child again" What au.
thority is there under the Chero-
kee law that warrants the clerk in
making such 4 decision? Some
of you judges in disguise, cite me to
a section that empowers the clerk
to declare a lease void and issue a
writ of ejcctment
There are but two causes Of ac-
ton under the Cherokee law that
can be set Up: Ono is where a
contract has besa made aud has cx-
pired, and the other is where the
party enters without the consent.
Now ! ask you, Mr.. Tru,t, did
either of these causes of action ex.
ist or were they proven? And |
ask both you and the public, if
neither did exist, have YOU the
right to decide as you did?
And if your plea, Mr., Trott, be
that you went ont OF your lawful
limits and decided this case on
the equities Of the case, let me say
to you that Austin Lowrey and
Sarah Lowrey are the ones who
violated the law and being the
they could not take
advantage of their own wrong.
Once before | entered the col
umns Of this paper to purify the
sanctity Of theHourts and the peo-
pie said / was right. Again in my
opinion it is becoming so putrid
that only an airing will save it
from total ruin and submit it to
the people, and | propose TO sub.
nit it to them again and again
until it shall have become
purified. | should interest my
self less if it had not been
that only a few short days ago
these same facts and circumstances
came up in another case (only the
evidence was ten times strOnger3
even the the terms of the lease
contract had been violated in every
sense of the word. "Flagrant"
although it is good woFd, don't
begin TO convey the idea. The
lessee had even turned a part Of
the plowed ground back to past
ure. Notwithstanding all this Mr..
DuYal and his partner were per.
mitted TO remain on the leased
premises and Mr.. Holderman was
denied the writ Of ejectment. But
Mr.. Trott(?) was not on Mr.. Hold
erman's side.
Much more iaight be said, Mr..
CHIEFTAIs, but / fear. ] have al
ready taken up too much Of your
space so | submit it to the decision
OF the people
Respectfully,
j. IL. Akin.
Niuita, I. T., April 4, 1891.
rr-ss-sss.-s-a-------
WHY AI,LOTMENTo