The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-02-03
/ FORTUNE AT STAKE
Iohn Schweitzler's Salmon Bay
Ranch in Dispute.
po6cHT AS UNIVERSITY LAND.
- claims or John Brysger's Heirs
sfx Consicts Sentenced - The
Troubles OF the Cascade.

big land case. involving the title TO
{ valuable fifty-four acre tract on Salmon
~ Is on trial in Judge Lichtenberg's
es1rf. It is the suit brought by Anna
6nnhia Brygger. executrix, and Ole Schil-
lid. executor, of the last will and tesla
ut Of John Brygger, against John
kwnship Is north, range east.
echweitzler is ia possession of the land,
Rvhich he holds by virtue of a homestead
eusrnt. Bigger claims it by virtue of
surchase from John Ross, who purchased
Int sale of lands set apart and selected
81 university purposes.
The complaint sets forth that in the year
~ congress granted to the territory of
Washington two sections of land for the
purpose of establishing university, and
i 1851 board of commissioners was APP
,,ointed to select the land for this purpose,
nd sell it for any sum not less than $3.50
81 acre. Among the lands so selected
rs this land in controversy, which was
nd to John Ross in 1854, and by him sold
q Johl Brygger in 1876 for $994.25.
Plaintiffs also allege that at Some time
Nor to 1879 the township plat of this land,
a file at Olympia, was fraudulently and
malciously altered. and this lot was erased
lpm the plat of university lands, and that
lhe register and receiver of the land Office
rerc misled by the alterations and eras-
ures and in December, 1873, permitted the
hnd to be entered as soldiers homestead
I1g John Schweitzler.
They claim that the local land Office and
commissioner of the general land Office de-
eded that this was part of the land select
a as university land, but that at the time
|d such selection and reservation the
homestead entry of Lemuel Holgate,
which had been previously abandoned,
lad not been cancelled.
NAY IL, 1858, and a patent was issued to
lin on August Is, 1883, by the commits
ioner Of the general land Office.
Plaintiffs claim that in deciding that
tbs land was not university land, but was
astTyed by reason of a previous home
s3ead entry, the officers misconstrued the
hr and committed an error, and the issu-
6nce of the patent to Schweitzler was the
result Of inadyertenee and mistake; that
III December, 1884, the commissioner of the
fneral land Office demanded that
&hweitzler surrender and relinquish his
|p6sent to this land and it be Cancelled. The
ptent was cancelled, but the secretary of
ne interior, on being appealed to, decided
tat the commissioner exceeded his au-
Acrity in canceling the patent, and, as it
bad been properly executed, recorded and
|attested, it must be delivered to Schweitz-
|kF and the conflicting rights could be set
|tled by the courts.
The defendant claims that Lemuel J.
Holgate made a homestead entry on the
|bnd in 1868, which was in full force and
|tdect ct the time of the selection for uni
|vsrsity purposes and the land was there
|loFe not subject TO he selected for that
|pnrpose. He denies that the land office
Vas misled or that any erasures or altera-
lions were made in the plat, and denies
|the right of Ross to the land and the right
|M Bigger, whose only title comes through
Ross
The case is being fought with vigor and
|um by the attorneys on both sides, and
|xil probably occupy several days.