Imperial Valley press., 1908-08-01
LAND SUITS SHOW PECULIAR METHODS OF oLD-TIMERs IN
 SECURING ENTRIES.
SIMILAR CASE$IN VALLEY
Officials Hold That Entries Were Void and Entrymen Had No Rights to sign-Perjury of Witnesses Shown and Power to Acquire Title Lost by Original Entrymen.

Deep interest is taken in the out come of the land cases of Siegel E. Skinner against Harrison M Bowker, assignee of Louis C. Green, and Skin her against John E. Davis, assignee and Frank Pierce, entryman. The evidence as to methods of procedure in these cases is similar and it is said they are typical of other cases which may be brought in connection with Imperial Valley lands
 The initial movement to secure these holdings dates back to 1909, when there was much activity in spec ulation in Imperial Valley water stock. In the Davis-Pierce case the contest ant affirmed that the initial entry was fraudulently made, that Frank Pierce did not make the entry for his own use or benefit, but for the benefit of some other persons, and that he did not see the land before making the entry, but that the papers were pre- pared and the money paid by the party or parties for whom the entry was made, and that the filing receipt was retained by these parties.
 It was alleged that for the making of this entry Frank Pierce was paid the sum of $5; that he never assigned the entry to Rosa M. Fenton on the date claimed, and that he signed the instrument in blank and it was re- tained by the party for whom the entry was made. It was also alleged that the entry was made and procured for speculative purposes, and was and is fraud.
 of testor were sustained by the Register and Receiver of the Los Angeles land office, after a hearing of witnesses.
 Peculiar Methods Used.
 The peculiar methods used by some persons in that period of the Imperial Valleys development can best be shown by a report of the testimony and the opinion given in this case by Gen. Prescott. This says:
 Frank Pierce, age 51, occupation, horse sheer, residence, Los Angeles, Cal, testified that, upon representa- tiOna made to him by one Milton Web ster, now deceased, who. claimed to be representing the Imperial Land &, Water Company, he, with two other men, names unknown to witness, ac- companied by said Webster, went to the office of the said Imperial Land x Water Co.,, in the Germain building, and that he there, at the request of @ man connected with said office, whose name witness did not know, signed two papers, one of which was a blank assignment; that the two men heretofore referred to- other than Webster, alter signing like papers with witness, accompanied by the uniden- tifed attache of the Imperial Land & Water Co., office, went to the local land office, then in the Potomac block; that witness was then given the amount of the filing fee by the young man, from the Imperial Land & Water Uompany'S office, and the party then entered the land office and that wit ness again signed his name and paid the money previously given him above referred to, to the man that had me (him) sign my (his) name in the land office, and that he then left, after having received six dollars from the young man heretofore referred to-. The witness expressed the opinion that no oath was administered while ne vas in the land office, and testi- fled positively that he did not then receive and had never since received a receipt of any character or nature, and further, that he had never, since making said entry, signed any paper, for any one, relative to said lands, other than afidaVits made during the course of subsequent investigations relative to said transactions,
 Never Saw the Land,
 "The witness asserted with equal positiyeness that he had never, at any time, examined the land in question and in fact had never seen it nor been in the Imperial Valley, where it is located"
 The land office officials conclude:
 "The prerequisite requirements of the act under which entry was made were not fulfilled, and the good faith on the part of the entryman, at the 1 time he initiated his entry, clearly was lacking, The department has been consistent in holding that one who claims, as transferee tracing title from an entryman whose entry had not been completed could not, as a matter of right, demand consideration