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

A1NhlNtAs VII AilH way bi iHh Atln
trial one or two Of the "supes'
asked me on tho street what was
going to do III the matter; said
they had seen Barnes in my Office,
etc, but gave them no definite
answer and the case went or 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 to save the condemnation that
would necessarily fall on the clerk
Of Cooweescoowce 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 aflida-
Wit showing. lst., the lease as
aforesaid and then in regular form
setting out that on or about the
20th 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
eiectment be issued. While this
case should have been treated as the
farce that ii 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 bower, Mr. Keys, was" thar'
and SO was II IL Trott(2) and
Clerk Trott. No attempt was
made to prove that Sarah Lowrey
was everin 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 10
the possession further than that
she was the wife Of Austin Lowrey
but on cross examination Of de-
fendant's witness, under biased
ruling Of the court and over the
protest OF the defendant, the said
lease was proven Nor did ii stop
here, for it was further shown
that under a contract with Sarah
Lowrey CATER the death Of Austin
Lowrey) 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(2) worked
on, in his imagination, to extend
the time to fifteen years on the
lease.)
Since this decision has become
famous(?) | have heard some say
it is a righteous one. To such
men | say, III you say it for pur-
pose, well and good, but ii you say
it because you believe to be ;rue,
then get thee 10 The cradle, for
thou art a child again " What au
thofity IS there under the Chero-
kee law that warrants the clerk in
making such decision2 Some
Of you judges in disguise, citeme to
a section that empowers the clerk
to declare lease void and issue
writ Of ejcctment
There are but two causes Of ac.
tion under the Cherokee law that
can DE set up: 0ne is where
contract has been made and has cx-
pired, and the other is whore the
party enters without the consent.
Now | ask you, Mr. Trott all
either OF these causes Of action ex.
list or were they proven? Aud
ask both you and the pubic, il
neither did exist, have YOU the
right to decide as YOU did2
And if your plea, Mr. frotl, 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
benefciaries they could not take
advantage of their own wrong.
Once before entered the col
umns of this paper 10 purity the
sanctity Of the courts 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 il shall have become
purified. | should interest my
self less if il had not been
that only few short days ago
these same facts and circumstances
came up IN another case only the
evidence was ten times str0nger;) I.
even the the terms Of the lease
contract had been violated ia every
sense of the word "Flagrantn (
although it is good word, don't
begin TO convey the idea. The
lessee bad even turned a part Of
the plowed ground back to past
ure Notwithstanding all this Mr.
DuNal and his pauner were per
miltcd 10 remain on the leased /
premises and Mr Holderman was
denied tie writ Of cjcciment. But
Mr. Trou(2) was not on Mr. Hold /
srman's side.
Much more might be said, Mr.. I
5HlEFraiN, but fear J have al
ready taken up too much OF your
space SO ! submit IL 10 the decision
of the people.
Respectfully,
j II. AKIN.
Ninita, I r.. April q, 1891.
rs~--s=--s--s--