Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1892-04-15
United States Court.
From SATURDAYS Daily.l

United States Court.
From Saturdays Daily
In United States court yesterday
morning in the Smith case Col. C. B..
Little testified as to the lease value Of the
property in dispute. He estimated $40
to 5 II a month per lot about the proper
figure for the Main street lots, and So or
such a matter for the rear fronting on
the railroad track. Joseph Hare also
testified $40 to SIS on street front, and
80 on rear lots. He said he got only 800
a.year for q warehouse on the track.
Agent John Davidson testified that the
railroad freight depot was built on the
property claimed by Smith when he
came here in 1875, that it had since been
enlarged, has been on the property all
the time, and that in 1881 these were
the only buildings on this property.
Plaintiff then introduced certain maps
showing the location Of the line of the
Northern Pacific, all indicating the line
q mile and a half south of, the present
dine Of road.
In the afternoon the case was summed
up. General Hughes, attorney for the
railroad, quoted from numerous authori-
ties and decisions Of the interior de-
partment in support Of his claim that
the road was entitled to right. of-way as
declared in it's charter wherever it
finally determined upon it's permanent
route; that the grading of any other line,
which was abandoned, cut no figure, and
did not affect their right to the 200 feet
each side Of the track of their main line
as finally established, built upon and
operated.
MI. Stevens, the counsel for the plain
tiff, had his case prepared in excellent
shape. He met his adversary at every
point and with the cunning of a good
lawyer used some of the same decisions
as quoted by the attorney for the de-
Tense, placing emphasis on other por-
tons than p~articularized by the oppos-
ing counsel, to sustain his side of the
controversy. Pc"
Before MI. Stevens had finished his
argument Judge Thomas interposed
several in~terrogations regarding counsels
position and finally intimated that the
case being purely M of law there was
nothing to be submitted to the jury. The
judge said that he should be obliged to
hold in favor of the defendant.
The Judge held that the United States
patent conveying title to the city is void
so far as the SAM conveys title to the
right-of-way o. the Northern Pacific on
the ground that section 2 Of the charter
OF the Northern Pacific (act of congress
of July Q, 1864 granted to the company
9 right-ot-way Of 200 feet on each side Of
the line of it's railroad; that it was q
grant IN presenta-a present grant.
He held with counsel for defense that
t'theS grant OF the right-of-way to the
Northern Pacific Railroad company was
9 present grant Of title to it, though q
survey or location of its route, or the
location and construction of its road was
necessary to give it precision and attach
it to any particular tract, but
when the company actually 10
Gated and constructed the road it
became fixed and attached to
the property in question, and took
effect as Of the date Of the act granting
to it the right.of-way. In substance the
Judge held that the actual construction
and operation of the road is the highest
evidence Of when and swhere the com
pany selected and obtained title to the
rightrof-way, q portion OF which was in
dispute in this case.
The jury in the case Of Smith VS.. the
Northern Pacific railroad company
found it's occupation gone-the Judge
deciding the case himself-pIurely
questions Of law only to be decided
andswere excused.
The grand jury during the afternoon
brought in eight indictments, and was
discharged. II is mliistrusted that these
indictments arein relation to pensions,
fraudulently obtained. The Agard case
viii probablylbe tried at thisterm,butiti
understood the new cases are not ready
for trial. To-day the case Of P. r. Smith
ys. the Queen Insurance company comes
mp. Smiths house was insured 70,
$500. After the fire the comrpan,
offered $1,000 il settlement. Smith re.
fused to take less than full amount, and
the company claims their offer 10 arbi
trate was also refused. r.. d. Registe,