The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-12-31
BLAND coUNTY's COURT HOUSE
Quarrel Over the site ut Last Likely 10
Be Adiudicated.

IRE Island county courthouse site, after
tslng on ire shelf for over a year, was
actually entered on its way 10 adjudica-
iEn yesterday afternoon. when Register
hg Clerk Herbert Smith took the mass OF
,a9srs from a pigeon hole and affixed the
eeSsI stamp. The case would not have
aeea n statu quo so long a time IL the fees
bal assn paid
sems people over in Island county
tAeugat there was so much prejudice over
thsEie business that ]. NJ. Babcock, Luth-
e. Clark. Thomas Cranney. James Giles
ye AID J. b. Libby. all defendants. said
tasy could not have a fair trial. while 9TH
N slii they could. The upshot OF the
Eitsr was a stipulation transferring the
&c TO King county. The papers were
fzi over. but as the money for filing did
ss appear they were pigeon-holed.
re county claimed that the necessity
rose for a courthouse. and on February 3,
81 The board OF county commissioners
eslermfned 70 provide for such 4 building
Ne erected at C0upeville. There were a
large number OF suitable sites, among
Which vas block q, in thomas Coupes
pat % coupeville Two weeks later this
AcSk was selected. and an agreement was
ssteFsd Into whereby the defendants were
. seed the site 10 the county without any
Nst-sAeF- Inc cur lllulet was tEENltQs anu
tis9 that. February II, 1898. a conveyance
vas demanded. but the defendants, in vio-
kaoa OF their contract In writing, neg
h'ied and refused TO keep their part Of
We agreement. The county also claimed
rs amended complaint that the defend
is never had or were in any manner
hHef OF the block on which the court
Aoass stands. and at the time OF the exc
sauan Of the contract had no authority 10
eaVey IT, II was claimed the breach OF
ea'Fact should give he county si.0oo dam
Ess
cnaney. Gillespie and Libby claimed
u-' me agreement was signed by Bah
s0ek as attorney in fact for Clark, believ-
fg nat Clark could be Jointly bound, hut
asa natter OF fact II did not bind him and
: Ftpudaied the act. They also claimed
ga AZ the time OF the execution OF the In
srsnent and for reasonable time there
90 The defendants could have purchased
sls Dock for sum not TO exceed $500. and
ssy expected AMI relied upon the fact that
- @uniy commissioners would accept or
w their proposition within a reasonable
- ana give them notice. They received
o 1otlce or acceptance until two years
- vas made. and after the property
- increased IN value 20 $50, and after the
.sasaetlon had passed from their minds.
:. sss eoniended that the facts I'm the case
-sa' 70 warrant the court IN estopplng
cam made under the agreement. A
1me after the agreement just men
80 Thomas Cranney purchased the
- ana tina county commissioners.
-A'as mat Cranncy was signer OF the
ssErai purchased the property from
= Clark denied having given pahcock
2Hy to sign hts name. and Babcock
= signed suQposlng he had authority.
~aSe then Clark had repudiRted the
.Ae'i1a. Ire county explains its ac-
- = purchasing from Cranney by saving
-. tfanrey Was Coune's agent. and the
4 se was necessary to preserve valUa-
= Improvements.