Imperial Valley press., 1909-04-03
Contestants Fall Out and Ois- close Their Methods Of
 Operation
Trial of Skinner on Charge of Destroy ing a Shack Upon Disputed Claim Brings Partial Exposure of the Con test Business and Makes Donny- brook Fair of the Court.

Exposure of the operations of the skinner Oxford combination of land jumpers was the interesting feature of a trial before jury in Justice Tout's court this week.
 The case was charge of malicious mischief against Sigel E. Skinner. and the chief witness for the prosecution was Clark Oxford, who had been Skinner'5 associate and partner in several contests of desert land entries in the valley.
 Skinner had won contest against an original entryman and had q pre- ference right of entry on certain numbered tract. He and Oxford quarreled over division of the pro ceeds of certain deals" i'll jumped land, and Oxford set up a claim to the tract in question and built q shack upon it in Skinner's absence. When Skinner returned, he removed the shack and took forcible possession of the claim. In the row that ensued, it is alleged, Skinner drew a gun and threatened Oxford and other persons. A charge of assault with a deadly weapon was made. but fell to the ground because it was not proved that the gun was loaded. The malicious mischief prosecution was another phase of the quarrel, and the case depended upon the respective posses sory rights of Skinner and a member of the Oxford family.
 District Attorney Eshleman tried to confln- the evidence to the simple issue of Skinner's right to destroy the building, but Mr. McNanara, attor- ney for the defendant, opened the way for general threshing out of the details of the land contest business carried on by Skinner and his asso- ciates.
 Correspondence between Skinner and Oxford was introduced, and from the letters it appeared that Oxford accused Skinner of retaining more than his share of the piunder and sought to force him to divide Fail ing to get any satisfaction, Oxford developed a severe case of righteous indignation and charged Skinner with defrauding the persons from whom the pair had obtained money. Skin ner's deafness to appeals for cash re- yealed his turpitude to the virtuous Oxford, and the latter decided to have no more to do with so bad man. The letters made it plain that the par were in the business of contest ing land entries purely for personal profit, and were not very particular about how they got money or from whom they got it.
 John E. Davis. one of Skinner's victims, was a witness for the prose cution. He told of the contest which deprived him of his land, and said he believed the decision was given to Skinner unjustly and in pursuance of conspiracy in which Skinner was only a tool He said he regarded Skinner as a cold blOoded scoundrel. but only a minor member of a gang that was subiecting honest settlers in Imperial Valley to injustice and hard ship. He had reason to believe that the records of the land office in Los Angeles had been misused for the benefit of Skinner, and chat Skinner had help and information to which he was not properly entitled
 Attorney McNamara tried to get Davis to testify that he believed the officers of the land department to be the chiefs of graft conspiracy in which Skinner was merely an instru- ment, but Davis refused to make so specific an accusation
 Character witnesses called by the defense to impair the value of Ox~ ford's testimony testified that the common reputation of Oxford was as bad as Skinner's and was the result of his close association with Skinner in land jumping operations.
 skinner took the stand in his own behalf yesterday and testified that he was in actual possession of the land by right of having won a contest; that he did work on the tract. and that cabin on the land was his only place of residence. During hls ab-