The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1902-11-08
DENY ALL CHARGES
NAVAL STORES MEN FILED AN
SWERS TO GOVERNMENT SUITS.
CASES TO BE TRIED IN APRIL.
EIGHT SUITS IN ALL INVOLVING
NEARLY $4,000.

The Peacock-Hunt & West Co., The
EIIis-YOung Co. and The Savannah
Naval Stores Co. the Defendants.
All Represented by Adams, Free
man, Denmark * Adams-Suits
Charged Defendants with Having
Bought Turpentine and Rosin Sc
cared by Trespnss on GOvernme Mt
Lands in FIOrida-wiII BE Tried in
United states Circuit COurt-GOv-
eminent Represented by z. $. Dis
trict Attorney w. r.. Leaken.
The three naval stores firms against
whom suits were recently filed in the
United States Circuit Court. charging
them with having purchased the pro-
duct of pine trees located on govern
ment lands in Florida. this product
having been taken by homesteaders in
violation of the law governing their
rights, filed their answers yesterday.
The suits. eight in all, involve an
amount of s34.5OO and are against the
Peacock-Hunt & West Company. the
Ellis Young Company and the South
ern Naval Stores Company. These are
represented by Messrs. Adams, Free
man, Denmark & Adams, who filed
the answers to the suits.
These answers are. in each case,
practically a blunt denial of the ale
cations of the suits. First, denial
is made that the United States was
lawfully possessed, as its own proper
ty, of the turpentine and rosin men
toned, or that this product of the
trees was lost to the United States, or
ever came into the possession Of the
defendant.
All Liability Denied.
In each case the defendant
denies that at any time it removed
or caused to be removed any of the
property belonging to the plaintiff
that it Transported or caused to be
transported this property, or that il
received it. In brief, 1t denies any and
all liability.
The notice of the filing of these
suits, which was made in the Morning
News Oct. %. stated that because of
the unusual questions involved, the an
swers were likely to be of more than
usual interest, but now, because of
the nature of these answers, the de-
velopments as to the actual defense the
trial alone will show.
No entryman or homesteader's name
appears in these answers and no claim
of titles to the lands is made for either
the parties in Florida or the purchas-
ers OF the product from the alleged
government lands.
The Governments plan.
Assistant United States Attorney w.
r. Leaken, who filed the suits, was
asked what step the government will
take next, and what was his opinion
OF the answers. He said that the next
step of the government will be to
bring the cases to trial: that further
than that, he had no comment to make.
II is probable that the trial will be-
gin the second week of April.
Later, Mr.. Leakin, referring to the
homesteader law, remarked that II a
homesteader's plough, by law, must
follow the AK. then a turpentine hoe
would likely cut some figure in these
proceedings. Mr. Leaken also said
that unofficially he had been informed
that the largest of the suits, involv-
ing $4,000, which was fled in this city
against the Peacork- Hunt & West Co,
and in Florida against G.. w. Warn &
co. of Brooksville had been settled by
the Florida defendant but that the
particulars of the settlement had not
reached him, and that in any event
the final settlement will have to be
made here.
The Homestead Law,
Further. referring to the questions
that are involved in the suits. Mr.
Leaken said the United States home
stead is simply a privilege of pre-
emption conferred on settlers to pur-
chase government lands in preference
TO other lands; that the settlers rights
protects him from intrusion or pur-
chase by others, but confers no rights
against the government .s
The cases in question have excited
considerable notice. not only In Flor
ida, because of the location of the lands
there, but also in Washington. One
OF the remarkable features of these
press notices is that they have reached
the notice of a firm of Washington
lawyers, which has sent a communi-
cation to some of the defendants Of
fering its services, claiming to be on
the inside of all matters connected
with the land office. and assuring the
defendants of skillful and intelligent
service in any land litigations. 1t is
needless to say that these offers have
been declined or ignored