The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-01-27
! n F|IAL TRIAL.
Han Case Transferred to
a, County Courts.
Val LIABLE LAND.
~-s~~ Bees Before the SUI
g r~~rt1James j. HILL Press-
|lIx -. Great Northern. Once
Bsyssg the Land, SSt
-....stsss Arose and He Drop
.s = sIdder-Judge penney

80 gnohonish county case OF
~ rs.s, Lumber Company ~ WSit
~. shlch has been hanging Ire
- years in the courts Of sncho-
;eary and which has twice been to
- ccaft, Is 10 DC finally settled
..s.sar court Of KIng county. The
-. certain improvements placed
..-s,sr COMPANY on school lands in
..~-.a,s Of Everett. II originally In
~ but has been going on 80
-, the cost BIZ has greatly in
80. amount. one Of the largest
80 ever filed In this county was
-s.vaay With the county clerk ~
g, wno Is n8w very confident Of
Dc. re case, which has. s..ce sexa
T against hlra Il the Kspe'ior; court
.ssrsuy times sent back by the sa-
ssurt. Tho case will be tried "a
snHsy on a change Of venue granted
Rees. Of Everett
uanseript contains an interesting
"a TIE complaint fled several
- The lumber company gave It's
y che story. The company had
n. block Of school lands near Ever
- The county commissioner "
s..lxh county. A mill had been
a and the land slashed and dlkea.
hsssry Il. iss2 The lands were sold
NJ egsnsy commissioners under the
- a the stale officers 10 Watt J.
~. Of Everett. for So an acre. The
k-s,ussufs of ine Hart Lumber Com
Id been appraised by the commits
n n ts.g70.ia, 4 demand was made
ynIrk<g Cor this amount. which be re-
q 10 pay. Then suit MAS brought.
i1rss. u, 1895, thescase first app lred
- Jsde Bennsy on the demurrer 10
rea1n,. which was overruled.
- sther legal DEVICES were used TO
W sae dismissed. but the only Result
hlsy Finally Rucker filed hts an
u the complaint. IN which he
- that there had been q conspiracy
J. r. Hsrf, Of the lumber com
tnd Two members OF the board IF
e commissioners. lie said tia; this
nrxy resulted In Harf's being given
nebdei REMEMBRANCE on the properly
~ that he could purcuase taa prop
4 hes than It's actual value. as 9th
s&lH ret bid Tor the land shsle In
kk4td He also contended hat in
M IL the county commissioners
fqpssised the school lands In question
. Ner.ed 10 the state board ~ aud
|nssxkasfs that the property was not
10 mers than s. an acre, rs II WAS All
= aarsk. badly eat 40 with siourhs
= spsn have TO be diked before 4 could
Ium Rueker held ;hst they had no
ENnake another apprais sment after
y hnd par his mill on the land.
~ abesatlons III Tire answer were
= ~ county commissioners had re-
y v nil ths lots separately. although
n ~ ern asked 90 do 50. and that the
kmps designated on which pretend ii
nquments were located. All this.
ese aid was done 10 keep other per-
~ - bidding. lie asserted that Hart
~ represented the value or his mill
= Fuh;f commissioners. and. know
4 ~ ignorance. had persuaded them
~ . $3.50 valuation on a mill not
- sssre than 5000. lie held that the
y SiaFe hlgh tide line was no, worth
= He further held that the min was
y eeaytnierce. az the land was only
e sw grazing and was without timber.
= complaint also told af the n1rroy
~ shat James J. Hsil had from get
iasxhs tn the alleged trap set by the
eassansrs and Hart. Hill was the
30 bslder on the property ~ the
szss but when he learned OF The Hart
F'Hsmsnts he refused 10 deal further
n natter.
y case fiBaily came 20 trial before
y leHaey ia March Is6 A great az
~ sgal talent appeared In the case
zvss'y point was contested. Th. 5ary
- 10 yetdirt in favor az Rueker
1tss lumber company Appealed 20 the
Hnss court on Jeeember ~. lNss;. tho
'1hs court reversed the decision AMI
'z5ssl tho case 10 the lower court fer
W rreeee,lieas
~ pen3ey Who WAS at that time on
FEfiCr bench Ia Snohcnish county.
claimed Il area. friend or the
~ ani political enemy ~ J +.
z PRESIDENT 81 the ianlser company.
~ aefided that he wanted the ease
TsSsia by Judge Dennev. Great haste
! ss7ssafA a. Judge Ds0ney's term og
US about To expire. Accord'nsiy
arr f2fN which had been dis
u vas recalled 20 Try the case. The
q company appeared cnlv go protest
= fnc proc ecaings Judge peuney in-
- re fury n bring tu verdict in
!. RocRer. which vas dome without
{. Il, ceremony tiasg however. had s..-
writ ~ prohibition from the 81
seAit which made ihe verdict n
$, - i"rF 80 M - ~. Judge Don
- secuted "a new utr ana finished
Few DAYS '1sfofe his tern, 81
EsspFed Again t7ge furry hroucnt I'm
!. 80 y kerk,t'- favs5rs 'cbe. ease was
stfers the supfen9s eonrf Tor fh,.
Z ffae sn1 ihe decision - ;ne lower
{. ~alH reversed Last l.r lav Judge
~ WHO saccss 3ea jtaAe Den9v.
!. VI order fransf~srinx fhs case %
WHY ior fertls's proceedings.