The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-10-05

rbHS 800. 80 ;'s'' 90 jol, 100 IL, S3i, 4UJ
Alese figures give a grand total OF ship.
\ @ es5 Lof the yeur ending September ~,
4 AVS through Port Arthur. Of 10 0ss %,
keiiohs q about l,1l6,S15 barrels OF AZ ga.-
4 SIs eaen. Ot the 90, PSI T65 gallons
S SSttppsa to eoastwise points there were ISL.
yee,ost gallons OF crude oil; ,954 lbs gel.
W. soar or desulphurized oil and 23vIUl
n ssil e OF gasoline. or the as. s}4. 400 r,l..
& srs snlppeu 70 foreign ports 1882 ,9s9 gnl.
.S,S too ree Grupe oil; 1,5i3,S56 solar oil aud
~ y should be remembered that in the
siso IN shipments the business of Sabine and
lima tb e0'a sS Iass which are practically one
gijnm,sn,e,, same, are not included ana 'tbstt
huf, wa exceed those Of Port Ar
suaaetor j. A. Paulhamus has lust re-.
from trip to Welsh. La. whore
i,esusated the conditions surround no
49, sua' some Port Arthur people are In.
vs'ea IN Mr. Paulhamus returned thor
4 y inss salisned that oil exists there fin good
/ Al az quantities. He thinks thar the vii
h IA yy saatloh has been drilled TOO deem and
Jtl6 viii is y ne reason II Is showing water
8.,thsrs ausise that II be plugged ana tn0t
L s1er Sa ny urttled which VIII stop at ghal.
kt.& vsr, ne new well viii be started
E 80 early date, It is thought.
f ~
empire State Oh, Coal and Iron
&..fA brought suit In the district court
( uslinst George A. Burt. II Is stated
petition that the plaintiff is the own.
~ Of the Yellow Pine subdivision
..S ~ o. GLADYS City subdivision of tne
A. featch league; that on October
81; he defendant by force and yl3lellca
E''.S a large number OF men took pos.
wal 8
s tract and drove the plamtiifs
eiApioyes from said property. and
ueiendapt Is now extracting oil
well The plaintiff alleges that
N1..2 med and believes that the said
NA.sbh ult claims the right to take
NIt<tbtret. oIid Wen by virtue Of nm al
t|4 ntSet claimed by him TO have been
40 Dy the plaintiff and defend mi
~ a, NV This contract provided
lI4 uNLthuant was 10 take oil al the
a3 =. Ptqlhtn and was To erect aud
N44nS JUS own expense suitable re-
#nt4 measuring tanks for said oil
connect the said well with these
llpe INES, Delivery Of the oil
11| ~ NOT earlier than September /
~. Ian october !. 1902
4a IN M 1lesed that the defendant
II6I aiiiut 20 rake possession OF the
2 NJ under the alleged contract
Is w., and this the plalnuH as.
l ny legally do, as the plainin
. N. euutraot Is null aud weld. de-
NJ 4IS,o,i.r never paid or promised, 10
41A rt.i in anything Of value for The
0A1 tEHeges supposed to have been
44 MIN by the contract. and
..41E not hound by the contract
4kf tunp the well or DO anything
A{ ~ lha tee right 70 at any time
n44ft inmate the contract
Z ~ cation Is made that he
IIsi3 ~ ~ oe tried the defen liant
Is 2st, WV barrels OF Oh from the
n aud the plaintiff ask that
.|4 ~ F4ast DC cancelled ana that
04[4 ~ the defendant the reason.
#'I ne 81 100000 barrels ~ iii
a1 al at the time OF the trial ~
.I IA 40 cents per barrel mak
eotedness OF 10000 the
4 81 Tor such other relief as
pecree him entitled to
~
n the Penmnn oornpab.y has
\ ans to lguge on contruct
y This sum may be a.
anks. aud N the penmeo
Il se Contract the work wiil
Finuft. "''
~
y tie oil men interested
Fells which have been ;et.
* &c Of sands It was r.
M enanee COMMITTEES had
~ assurances thar II tcis