Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1916-05-16
Supreme Court Holds Off cials of Districts Should
 Not Buy Property.
9-YEAR SUIT OVER
 BALE COTTON ENDS
More Than $500 Expended in Litiga. tion Over Staple Worth $40, Which Disappeared from Paragould
 Railroad Station in 1907.

Little Rock, May 15.-Members Of boards of improvement or attorneys for such boards are not eligible as bidders for property sold for taxes due the district they control, accord ing to decision of the supreme court today in a Texarkana case The supreme court reversed a decision of the Miller ohancery court, holding valid sales of delinquent tax proper ty in Improvement district No. 10 of Texarkana to John F. Simms, attor- ney for the districts board, and 1n- structed the lower court to grant a decision in compliance with the com plaint, asking that the statutory sale be set aside and title to the property be quieted The court held that such practice too easily could result in fraud. Such was not evident in the case upon which the court was rul- ing, as Mir. Simms had obtained the opinion of the chancellor as to whe- ther he could legally purchase the property in question before bidding 1t in. The courts opinion said that for members of boards of improve ment, or employees of such boards. to buy in property sold for taxes. might cause their interests as individuals to conflict with their interests as officials.
 Nine Years Suit Ends.
 Nine years of litigation over bale of cotton, which disappeared from paragould June II. 1907, was ended. it was believed, by a decision of the supreme court. It was the second appeal to the supreme court in the lawsuit, instigated by Joe Norman. a farmer of Greene county, against Bertig brothers, Paragould mer- chants. The supreme court held taat the lower court was correct in di- recting the jury to return a verdict in favor of the defendants. Norman. like many other Greene county farm CTS, hauled the bale of cotton to Para gould. It was valued at $40, and was a pretty sizahle parcel to be convent ently concealed in ones pocket or tol be surreptitiously removed in gun ny sack. However, Norman's cotton disappeared Despite its worth, the bale of cotton to date has cost $500 or more in attorneys fees and court costs. It was alleged that the bale of cotton was placed on cotton platform at Paragould for shipment by Bertig brothers. Later. 1t was 6ontended, orders were received by Bertig brothers not to ship the cot ton, that it had been turned over to the B. w. Clark Grocery company. i Later. when Cotton Belt agent planned to make out bill of lading | for the cotton no such bale was found.
 Decisions Rendered.
 The supreme court handed down the following opinions:
 By Chief Justice McCulloch:
 g. B. Anderson vs. Red Fork Levee district, from Desha circuit court; af- firmeG. |
 George Davis vs. Della Padgett Sif-i : ford, from White circuit court af- flrmed. @WN
 Marshall Mott vs. American Trust company. from Craighead chancery court; reversed and remanded.
 Will Braunick vs. Fred Van Wagen- CT, from Pulaski chancery court; af- firmed.
 By Justice Wood:
 J. H. Martin vs. Manning, Emerson & Morris, from Arkansas chancery court; affirmed. Justice Kirby dis , sents.
 J. c. Payne vs. City of Bonneville, ! from Logan circuit court; reversed