The Kinsley graphic. [volume] (Kinsley, Kan.) 1890-1940, 1893-10-13
A NEW CORN Law.

A recent episode in this vicinity
shows that things are coming 20 such
pass in this county that it is not safe
for farm .r to plant Il crup of corn on
land rented from loan company I'M
with IA double barrellel shotgun until
il i, gathered. List April citizen
of this county named A. Gault enter
ed into Il written contract with The
SArkansas Valley & Irrigation company
tu break 80 acres of land on the farm
near Kinsley known as the John A.
Bowling farm. between April IA and
July l, 1898. at S1.50 per acre, and
the Contract further gave him the op
ton to plant the land broken int any
spring crop, and if he did 81 the cnm-
parry was to receive one fourth of the
crop, delivered i'm kinsley. The con-
tract also provided that Mr. Gault
should SOL cut the land i'm the fall of
1898 PRIOR to December Is, and seed
the same to wheat and give one-fourth
of the wheat raised tn the Company rs
rental. In purSutnre of the contract
Mr Glult broke the 50 acres of land
and planted it to corn. In the sum
mer after the corn had been planted
he WAS compelled to go to Staff 'rj
county TO obtain work. Hi, sou. how
ever. remained here, working for Mr..
McCrea When the proper time ar
rived to gather the corn Mr. Gauit re-
turned here for the pu .Se of gather
ing his crop AMI ais, seedIn, the land
to wheat AS provided in the Contract;
when. 10 aud behold, when he went to
his field he fund i've neil cutting his
COIN for him Upon inq iiry of the
me-. he learned that they mad been
employed by one of the republican
County initiates, VIII, is ais "a kind
of sub agent for the land and irriga-
ton Company, and that the county
candidate and another gentleman in
agent of the company. had taken the
corn and were to give tile company the
fourth that Gault had agreed to
give. and that the remaining three
fourths of the crop MAS to go to the
two takers Cor their trouble and ex
pense in having the crop gathered
Mi G:,ult naturally made inquiry Of
the CT unity candidate rs to what right
he had to take the corn. lie was
cody informed that in going ont OF the
county and remaining away as lie had,
l,e had forfeited hi, Contract and his
crop. but was not Informed us III how
the title he had forfeited descended
to the county candidate and his part
ner.
We are informed to-day that the
corn has been cut and hauled away
without Mr.. Gault's permission AID
against Ills pictCSo, tbii't thfAt iiO VIII
probably have to appeal to the law to
get his rights in the matter. Upon
what theory Of law, justice or equity
Mr.. Glult forfeited his contract by
going into an adjoining county to
work, after he had planted his crop
of sod corn, we have not been ia
formed. and after Il careful reading
Of the contract We have failed to ind
any clause prohibiting Mr.. Gault from
leaving the county, or requiring him
to sit on the prairie and watch the
corn grow. There may, however, be
some occult principle or rule of law
with which We are unacquainted, by
which when Il man makes Il contract
with Il loan company to put in crop
on shares on their land, and then after
the crop is planted goes off somewhere
else to work, the crop becomes the
property of the sub agent, who gets
to the land erst. If there is such a
principle we would like to know it.
and our columns are open for its elu-
citation to any one interested in
maintaining it.