Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1902-12-22

LONG DRAWN OUT LITIGATION
ON HUMPTULlPS SETTLED.
The Lytles Thought They Had a Cinch on
humptuIips. Judge Rice Decides the
Charges Of the Boom Company We're
Reasonable. and that Liens Hold Good.
Outsrowth Of Attempt Of Lyle Bros. to
Control the HumptuIIps River.

Judge klce, VINO ncaru the cases OF me
Grays Harbor Boom Co. VS.. the Lyle
Logging & Mercantile Co., in the dis.
qualification OF Judge Irwin, rendered
his decision Friday evening in favor of
the Grays Harder Boom Co.
The history of this case is interesting.
Logging on the Humptulips river in the
early 00s was precarious, owing to the
difficulty OF securing the logs at the
mouth Of the river, aAd, in 1898, local
boom company was formed, and boom
placed at the river mouth.
The first freshet took this boom ont,
and for a number OF years the Humptu-
lips loggers were afraid to put their
product into the river. In 1897, G. E..
Burrows and A. p. Stockwell, OF this
ty, purchased controlling interest in
he Grays Harbor Boom Co. and spent
Nb, ut $50 900 in i'm proving the river,
Wi ding dam and rerfecting a Sale
ogh, lding proposition at the mouth OF
he liumptulips river.
Several years later, the. Iytles became
intero~ ;2n u: that river, and, requested
the boom .cntany W give them special
rates. When tbs was denied, they put
in boom Immediately above that of the
Grays Harbor Co., and undertook to do
business. The first high water took out
their works, and they found themselves
not only out Of business, but responsible
for number OF logs.
In the meantime, the Grays Harbor
Co. went right along, doing business,
and made its regular charge for booming
logs. The Lytles made all offer on their
logs below that charged to others, and
were informed by the G. II. Boom Co.
that all logs looked alike to it, they re-
fused to pay. The q. II. Co. filed liens
on the loos, and this is the matter de-
cided, Friday, by Judge Rice. There
were nineteen liens filed, which were
merged into five cases, and the bone of
contention was, by the Lytles, that the
charge of the Grays Harbor Boom Co.
for poomage was exorbitant. This the
court held not to be true, and gave judg.
ment for the boom company.
This case presents some peculiar fea-
lures, and might be appealed to the
supreme court were it not for the fact
that the Lytles are now trying to dis
establish fact wrongly, we think) set
forth in a decision several years ago, in
which Chas. Neeson, of this city, was
opposing the Lytles' right to levy toll on
his, Nelson's, logs without his request
to handle them. 1t will be remembered
that in this contention, Neeson held
that he did not need the Lyle boom,
and, therefore, did not have. to pay
boomage. The Lytles held, in this in
stance, that they had spent good money in
mprovi ng the Hoquiam river, and should
he allowed to collect toll. whether Neeson
required the use of the boom or not.
In this last case, the position OF the
Lytles was completely reversed. They,
in this case, wanted to be absolved from
the costs of boomage. for the reasons
that they had not asked it, and that they
had their own provision for boomage
anyhow. When i. is recalled that this
defense of the Lytles is the identical de-
tense put up against them few years
ago by Neeson, the decision of Judge
Rice becomes within the province Of the
mind of even the laity.