The western sentinel. [volume] (Winston-Salem, N.C.) 1887-1926, 1893-11-09
TWO BIG LAND SUITS
THE FAMOUS PICKERING-WHE
Err CAsEIN STOKES COURT.
The Land in Dispute Consists of About
$4,000 Acres.-The plaintiffs
to Pay All the Costs.

Only two cases Of general interest
on the civil docket was disposed of at
| the recent term Of Stokes court.
The first one was J. w. Neal against
| Floyd Nelson for the possession of a
piece of land which was entered by
| said Nelson. Neal claimed under title
from heirs of W. A. Lash. This was
decided in Meals favor, but the case
will be carried to the Supreme Court.
The second was another land case
the famous Pickering vs.. w. Fl.
wheeler suit. In speaking of it the
Danbury RepOrter-Post says: This
was continued in Wheeler's favor
without going through regular jury
trial. While a number of the best
lawyers who attend this bar were
win, it only took one little Mebane,
| of Madison, n. c., and one Hum
phreys, of this place, a few words to
convince the court that Pickering had
no land here else if he had the big
team of lawyers failed to locate it on
Wheeler's claim. The case was dis
missed, plaintiff to pay all cost up to
and including this term of the court.
I'VE do not know whether the Pick
ering crowd will pick their fiints and
try again or not. If they do and can
get any hold at all it will probably be
big fight as there may be some
$4,000 acres of land in controversy.
while this suit is only against Wheel
er who claims some 10000 acres of the
survey.
The lands now in dispute, as we
understand, is part of the $1,000
acres, more or less, granted to one G..
Shober, about 1895 to 1900 \ little
later on the said Shober sold to one
Timothy Pickering. 1--WE think then of
Philadelphia). After some time (so
tradition has it, Mr.. Pickering came
to this country to see his fine North
Carolina lands. After seeing them he
was not so well pleased with his pur-
chase as he expected and sued ShOber
for fraud, or his money back. The
case on one plea or another hung fire
in our courts many years.
Occasionally section $3.50 acres
was sold by the sheriff for taxes and
the cost in the case and it being the
law that if no one wonld pay the
charges against the land offered for a
less number of acres than was in The
tract offered, then it was the duty OF
the sheriff to bid it off for the State.
and it again became public land,
subject to entry just as if it had never
been taken up. Much OF this Is, 00O
went back to the State.
w 90 not pretend to say whether
all or not outside of those sections
which were bought by individuals. II
the case is brought up again and gets
fairly under way it will be big fight.
As we have heard it rdmored iu the
case the "LawyerS VS.. Wheeler" some
of the plaintiffs said that If they re-
covered in this case it will lead to for
ty cases against men who GAINED land
inside the big survey.
I'VE never met young Pickering but
once, at whose instance suit VS.. Wheel
er was brought. He seems to be per,
feet gentleman ana told US that he
would not continue for any of this old
claim of his grandfather'S 1--WE think it
waS) which had been sold for taxes OF
cost, or which had been re-entered and
in | Ossession of other parties. The
parties who led him into this thing
did not know at the time of bringing
the suit the old country court docket
in Stokes as far back as 1872 showed
| that mary sections of this land haG
been bio off by the sheriff for The
State and again became public or Va
| can't land as we call it. All this 'tt
do about Pickering now owning any
land in this county was Matched III
and put on foot by some regular lane
pirates aided by some avaricious law
| YerS.
''Since these lawyers have Learned
something about the situation VIZ
hardly expect they will advise theil
client to continue the fight but if they
do we expect long hard fight over it
as the land in controversy is Wortl
many big dollars"