Fairhaven herald. [volume] (Fairhaven, Wash.) 1890-????, 1892-04-12
HEARING THE FIRST Case
The State Board of Equaliza-
ton and Appeal Taking
Evidence
Case of Fairhaven & Southern
R.R.Co. VS.. Pacific Coast
Trading Company
Who Has Priority Right TO
Purchase the Heacock
Mill Property

The hearing of the contest case Of the
Fairhaven q Southern Railroad Com
pany vs.. the Pacific Coast Trading
Company, the first case under the tide
land laws to come before the state
board of equalization and appeal Of the
state Of Washington, was commenced
Yesterday afternoon. The case grows
out Of the conflicting applications OF
the parties for the purchase Of what Is
| known as the Heacock mill property
on the tide lands near the Great North
ern depot. II. y. Thompson and }. A.
! Kerr appeared for the railroad com
pany and Dorr, Hadley d Hadley and
Bruce d Brown for the Pacific Coast
Trading Company. The case raises
many interesting questions and the
proceedings were closely watched by a
number Of attorneys and clients inter
ested in prospective tide land litiga-
ton. Mr. Thompson, in opening the
case. stated that in 1889 II. +. HeacOck
leased the tide land IN controversy
from the ItarhaVCn Land Company
for the nominal rental Of one dollar
prr annum. In this lease, ne SAID, II
was expressly stipulated that the lessee
waived all rights to acquire title to the
tide land. This lease could not be
transferred without the consent OF the
Fairhaveu Land Company. The ia,
ciiic Coast Trading Company acquired
Its interest in the property by purchase
lat -herin's sale under foreclosure OF 9
chattel mortgage. 1t was stated by
the sheriff in making the sale, said Mr.
Thompson, that only the privilege
granted by the lease were Offered io
sale.
Mr.. Dorr, in his opening, alleged
substantially the following state o
O., facts: In the summer Of 1889, beiOr
} the constitution of the state wa
adopted, and before anybody cOul'
acquire any title to tide hands, ii. /
r Heacock drove piles for the foundation
Of his sawmill in the tide lands in que'
ton After the work was well unde
way the Fairhaven Land COmpan
asserted its claim to the premises. l
hold peaceable possession of the prOl
IS erty upon which he expended conslt
cradle money, Mr.. Heacock became
party TO the lease. MI. DOll WI
tended that at the time the lease wa
- signed, it not being known what IL
tide land policy Of the state would b.
A the lease simply preserved to the less
n whatever rights it might have to II
u property. But the lessee now hole
that the lessor has no rights and tn
the first right to purchase belongs
the party making substantial nmproV
ments.
Mr. Thompson then proceeded to |
troduce evidence in the case, to whi'
MIR. Dorr objected, holding that t
contestant had no claim on I
grounds, that the application to PIT
. chase was not filed within sixty day
but on the sixty-first day after the p
of tide lands was filed by the loo
board Of appraisers, and that the &C
testant was not the abutting upla
owner.
T Mr. Thompson then read the lei
v and offered it in evidence. The
| mainder of the session was occupied
l. hearing arguments Of counsel upon \
DORIS objection to the admission of
lease in evidence. The question
i. taken under advisement by the boa
ale The board will convene this mo
ing at 8 o'clock and resume the he
ing of the case. Many witnesses
III be called to testify on each side.