The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1907-03-10

IL, and the state was being defrauded
out OF the money. On my word as a
gentleman, ! honestly believed Jensen
cid not want the land when / applied
ioI H. II ne had applied he would have
got II. as the board always gives pref
| erence to ieasers. OF course. I don't
oeheye member of the board should
use his position to take. advantage of
an outside applicant"
Mr.. Lynch, recalled said he had no
interest. directly or indirectly, in town.
snip Il south, range "a east, nor any
interest whatever in state lands leased
10 j. I. Breckons. H. N Hayes, MEM
per of the board. also said he had no
interest whatever in the Breckons land
Lets Anderson Out. -
r. A Sorensen said he had never ap-
Piled for any land anywhere on sugges-
ton OF Mr.. Anderson, nor had Ander-
son ever advised him to apply for any
land at any time. He said Anderson
had never had an interest in any land
ever owned by Sorensen. On cross-ex-
animation, Mr.. Sorensen said he took
the land as an investment and home
steaded it on advice of his attorney, S.
Z. Armstrong He said Anderson
showed him map of the region by So
rensen's request. He said he did not
remember who was with him when his
application was filed In the United
States land office. but was positive in
his declaration that Anderson did not
Draw the papers for him He said he
had heard that Mueller had bought
some land, and learned from a farmer
that the Lewis ranch had been sold.
Later, he said, he was informed that
title to the Lewis property had gone to
the Utah Savings & Trust company, but
he denied that he had not received this
Information until after the senate In
quiry had begun. He said he learned
that Mueller intended to build a sum-
mer resort, and he wanted to get in
Hatch Brothers Complaint.
Philander Hatch and Alvin Hatch,
brothers, owning large tract of land
in Summit county, laid before the board
their statement in a case which they
now have in the courts against the
state land board. Two dernurrers in the
case have been sustained in the lower
courts, and the action is now pending
on appeal to the supreme court. Testi-
flying, not under oath, they said they
applied for thirteen sections of land at
Sl.50 an acre, but the board demanded
$3.50. They decided to take five acres at
$3.50. but were informed later that their
application had been rejected by the
board, as Barnard ]. Stewart had ap-
pneu lOT Tie tract Ol lHlTle6I
acres at $3.50 and later secured 1t. In
sisting that they would have taken the
thirteen acres at $3.50 had they known
the board would not sell them what
portion of the land they wanted, the
brothers contended the board had dis
eliminated against them The demur-
rers were sustained on the ground that
the brothers must show fraud to e5
tablish their standing in court. The
contention of the land board is that the
brothers sought to isolate eight acres
by purchasing five, thus making the
eight acres, surrounded by their hold
ings. valueless to others and subject 10
use only by Hatch brothers. Mr.. Dixon
said the refusal of the Hatch offer and
the acceptance of the Stewart offer re-
suited in profit of $1,000 for the state.
Testimony at the inquiry ended yes
terday and witnesses were excused from
further attendance. The committee will
meet in executive session early In the
week to review the evidence and for
mulate its report to the senate.