The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-08-28
John Dawson, Assistant AttOrn-
ney General Suing State.
Represents One of the Cheyenne
County Settlers"
POIN
Land Certificate Graft and How
1t Worked.
Bernard Hickert Having Trou-
BILE to Clear Up Title.

John Dawson, chief assistant attor-
ney general of Kansas, is in a peculiar
situation. He is prosecuting a law
SUIT against the state of Kansas, while
at the same time he is the states at
torney.
MI Daw working at his desk in
the attorney generals office. has
orarted brief in behalf of his client,
ana against the state. Backed right
up against the desk of Mr.. Dawson is
the desk of Charles D. Shukers, an
otner assistant attorney general, and
Mr.. Shukers is writing the brief on
Dehalf or the state, against Dawson s
client.
II Is a most peculiar situation-al-
most equal to that of ]. R. Burton,
VINO appeared as attorney for parties
fighting the government
However, with Mr.. Dawson, the sit
uat1on is one in which he is entirely
innocent of any Illegal practice. He
IS simply helping an unlucky western
Kansas farmer get possession of a
farm which rightfully belongs to him.
and for which the state, through it's
agents, refuses to accept payment
me case is that Of Bernard Hickert
against J. A VanDoren and w. S.
Booth, county treasurer and county
clerk respectively of Cheyenne coun-
ty. Mr.. Dawson and H. R. Tillotson
are attorneys for Hickert. The pro-
ceeding is an original mandamus, and
1t is up to the attorney general to de-
fend the two county officers who re-
fuse to take -Hickert's money.
Hickert is not land jumper He is
not seeking to gobble UP some un-
fortunate settlers land under the
original certificate game. On the
contrary. Hickert is victim of that
game himself He bought some land
In Cheyenne county some years ago,
and has improved it and made it a
valuable tract Then along came
foxy lawyer who discovered that there
was an original certificate of purchase
outstanding on Hickert's land and
that the certificate had not been prop
erly forfeited. The lawyer bought the
certificate and then told Mr.. Hickert
that he would have to pay him 5000,
or get off of the farm. After consult
ing a lawyer, Hickert decided that the
cheapest. way out would be to pay.
He accordingly forked over $500 to
the lawyer, who had bought the GER
tificate for a song.
Then Mr.. Hickert figured it out that
it would be cheaper to proceed to
prove up his title to the land under
the original certificate which he had
bought than it would to finish the
payments required under the later
certificate. He therefore rendered
payment under the original certificate,
and the county officers refused to take
the IHOIey. IHeN Chained lnaL even
though the original certificate was the
valid one. and though Hickert had
been obliged to buy 1t to get a title
to the land. yet he must continue to
paw on the new certificate.
The attorneys.fo the state will de-
fend the action of the two county Of
ficers on the ground of what is termed
"estoppel" They will say that since
Hickert recognized the right of the
state to transfer the land to him un-
der the new certificate, he forfeited
his right to prove up under the old
certificate. They say that while any
body else but Hickert might prove up
under the old certificate. Hickert must
stick to his original plan of paying
out under the new certificate.