The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-10-27
THE APPEAL FAILS.
Petition Against Tide Land
Appraisement Dismissed.
serogE The WRONG TRIBUNAL
rsgen TO Superior Court Instead OF
Land commissioners Unruiy
Youth sentenced.

Ia appeal taken by Corporation Coun-
Isl Scott 70 the superior court al the re-
easst OF freeholders against the appra!se-
,rsnt OF the tide lands Was yesterday dis
-ssss6 The ten freehoidsrs who made
- request for the appeal are j. Otto.
rrsnk GFifsise. James Gagnon, c. W. En-
So A. &. Edwards, ID. Mathews, James
os.snn Thomas ". Bennett. William W.
Fsss and T. Il. Russell. Their request
.ss drawn by w. r. Hays, who paid the
,ss.s out OF his own pocket. Il was tax
~ "a the very last day OF the time allowed
rs The law for such petitions, and read that
~ petitioners seit aggrieyed by the ap-
trzlsement fixed by the local board Of APP
srzsement because the valuation fixed
II said aypraisement was greatly dispro-
carbonate 10 the real value of the tide
lands. being, as they believed, less than
ene-senth OF the value, and IL they were
uernitted 10 be sold for the sum thus
fre6 they. az taxpayers, and the state at
hrge, would suffer irreparabie loss The
request was addressed 10 W. t. Scott
eorporat!on counsel. and he signed the
so,.ce OF appeal drawn up ~ Mr.. Hays,
A required by the law OF 1886. which gives
hsn no discretion.
A motion 10 dismiss the appeal was
na5e on October 10 by Robert Moran, J.
z Fox and others, represented by STRAIT
ton, Lewis * Gilman, Donworth e. Howe
sna Allen g. Powell. This motion came
70 FOR hearing before Judge Osborn yes
friday morning. but the Judge discovered
tsst he was interested, being an applicant
fsr the purchase OF tide lands, and was
fAerefore disqualified. The motion was
transferred TO Judge Humes' court and
argued there.
Jay c. Allen. OF Allen & Powell, and
George Donworth made arguments IN sup
port OF the motion, and w +. Hays
against Il. The contention was that the
appeal was improperly taken; that no ap-
peal would lie from the appraisement OF
the local board TO the superior court:
thar IL should have been taken from the
heal board 10 the board OF state land COM
missioners that IL was not taken by the
rl.y council, but by the corporation coun-
eel. and that II was not taken on behalf
Of the state as required by law. Section
8 Of the law OF 1895. In relation 10 tide
lands. provides that appeals may be taken
from any appra.sals OF the local boards
70 the state land commissioners. and sec
ton 81 OF the same act provides that at
tie request OF tho governor or ten free
holders the city attorney must appeal 10
IRE superior court from the state board.
The court held that the request was
trisdiciional. and as the appeal could not
be taken from the action OF the local
board 70 the superior court the court was
without jurisdiction to entertain the ap-
peal
Mr. Hays. attorney for the freeholders.
objected 20 the court hearing the motion
upon the grounds that the motion vas not
made BY a party 70 the records. and be-
eause the motion was not made by per-
sons Interested In the subject matter. Mr..
HAYS contended that the supreme court
IN the ease az Allen VS. Forrest had for
ever settled the question that the upland
owners had no vested right, that the tide
land Is the exclusive property Of the state.
~hs might deal with its land TO the ex-
csasson az al persons. and ths. the case
rad 70 be determined between the eitv at
fornsy. appellant. and the board OF state
Ind commissioners. respondents
Judge Humes inquired whether the local
board or the board % state land commits
s'oners had made the appraisement. and
vss Informed that the locai board Rad
made Il lie then ordered the case dis
missed
Mr HAYS informed the court. after It's
Yuiing. shat the focal board AZ the time
The appeal was taken had ceased 20 ex-
Is He then took an exception - tho
courts ruling. ana gave notice ~ appeal.
Corporation Counsel Scott explained that
-he request OF the freeholders required
MIN 10 appeal from the hoard % state
land commissioners Mr. Scott WAS going
~ 20 exniain further. but Judge Huues
stopped him nv saving the explanation
was satisfactory. as he was in no way TO-
sponsibie for the error in the appeal lie
sustained tho motion 20 dismiss, ana or
serei the appeal dismissed.