Omaha daily bee., 1897-01-18
POOR FARM CASES AGAIN
Possibility that They will Bo Tied Up in
the Courts for Several Years,
ATTORNEY BiCKETTS GOOD CONTRACT
County Commissioners Faced by Lit
CATION, Whatever Course They
May Take I'm DIsposing of
the Complications.

Unless the unexpected should happen the
people who have claims against the county
OF Douglas on account Of money paid to
the county for lots purchased In Douglas
addition are not likely to receive any money
in return for at least three or four years
or until after the cases have been taken 10
the supreme court through the tedious pro-
cesses which surround litigation of that ma
ture in this state. This course will almost
certainly be taken, regardless Of the action
that may be taken in the matter OF allow
ing the claims OH the part of the Board OF
County Commissioners. This result is the
natural outcome of the complications which
surround these cases. In order to make this
clear it will be necessary to review the
events leading up to the present situation.
In 1887 a proposition was submitted to
vote of the people of Doug.as county au-
thorizing the county commissioners to plat
a portion of what was known as the poor
farm" and sell the lots at public sale. The
addition thus provided for was TO be known
as Douglas addition" This proposition re-
ccived large number of votes, more votes
being cast for it than were cast against IT,
but the number of votes cast in its favor
was not majority of all the votes cast at
the election. 1t was decided that the propo-
sition had carried and preparations were
made to place Douglas addition upon the
market.
This was at the height of "the BOOM" and
the sale of Douglas addition was made
jubilee occasion. There were brass bands
and a barbecue and a good time generally.
The lots were sold at auction and were
knocked down" at what would now be re-
garded as fabulous prices The addition was
favorably situated and property there was
regarded as very desirable, hence lots brought
fancy figures. The county did rushing
business and 100000 or $4,000 was realized
from this sale and this amount was added
to the fund for the construction OF the county
hospital building. this being the purpose for
which the lots were sold.
AS time went on payments were made on |
these lots until the county had received |
about 100000 from this source 1t was then
discovered by some of the purchasers that |
there was flaw in the title to the lots, and |
that the county commissioners could not |
give a good title. for the reason that the |
proposition authorizing the sale of the lots !
had not received sufficient number of
votes and had not carried. This was in
1892 and claims commenced to pour i'll upon |
the county board from the purchasers of
these lots, who wanted their money returned
to them.
Some of the claims were rejected, and the
claimants thereupon commenced suit in the
district court to recover their money A
number Of other claimants We're advised by
the commissioners not to commence suits, as
a multiplicity of suits would simply put the
county to additional expense, and the com
missioners promised that the outcome OF the
suits then pending in the courts would govern
the action of the board upon the other
claims Among these claimants was Will
liam l. Kierstead, now a member OF the
Board of County Commissioners, and he
states, most positively, that the members of
the board al that time, as well as subse-
luent members, promised faithfully that the
result of the suits then pending would settle
the whole matter without the necessity of
suits.
The county was defeated in the district I
court, and the case appealed to the
supreme court, where the county was again
defeated. The attorney for the claimants C.
B. Keller in the latter part of December,
sos, or the first part of January, 1896, COM
nenced mandamus proceedings iii the district
,ourt to compel the commissioners to make
IN estimate for the payment of the judg-
nents affirmed by the supreme court. A
writ OF mandamuS was issued, and it was at
his point that the county commissioners en-
,loyed special counsel to defend the interests
If the county in these suits.
At that time the county had a county at
orney drawing a salary of $2,500 per year.
nd three assistant county attorneys drawing
100 each per month Notwithstanding this
act, the county entered into a contract with
v. ID. Beckett, by which he received 81 500
S a retainer, and in case he defeated the
judgments, he was to receive 10 per cent
which would amount to about
numerous claims which had been filed
gainst the county, but which had not been
aiken into court, and If he afterward sue
eeded in defeating these, he was to receive
n additional 5 per cent. which would
mount to about $1,000. making Sl6,5 500 al
ogether, In case the county won in every in
tance. In addition to this it was specified
hat the county was to pay all the costs in
urred in prosecuting the cases.
1t is recent history that the supreme
ourt decided against the county so far
s the judgments are concerned and that
othing remains to be done but to pay them
s amatter of fact, the supreme court has =
assed three times upon the merits of the :
lse, deciding against the county upon every
sue raised 1t is now proposed by Mr. | 9.
eckett TO take the claims into court and set
p the statue of limitations as a defense.
This question has formed the subject of
sveral discussions among the commissioners
lring the past week. Commissioner Stem
erg, who was a member of the board at the
me the contract was made with Beckett |
vors eXhausting every legal resource be- | u
re allowing the claims. Commissioners
ierstead, on the other hand is in favor of
fecting some kind of a compromise with the
aimants, and thereby save the county the =
lditional expense of further legal proceed