Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1922-03-22
EjEC7MENT
CASE ENDS
IN TANGLE
Where Does Action
Stand at Present?

The Beetown ejectment case of VIM.
e. Houghton VS.. VIM. Barr, Went 10 a.
draw in circuit court Friday with
each side claiming victory.
The origin of the case runs into an
cient history and testimony was taken
of land transfers and roads run as far
back as 1882
Summed up Mr.. Houghton claimed
that Mr.. Barr had wrongfully in 1911
and in 1918 moved his fence lines in a
manner as to include part of the
Houghton lands within the Barr
acres The land in dispute has been
estimated to be about one-half acre.
The dispute has been going on be-
tween the farmers for some years.
Mr.. Houghton claims that the orlglnal
fence line was correct and that his
line followed a survey made by the
government in 1870 The government
marks have been obliterated. Mr..
Barr claimed differently and employed
IA surveyor to determine the actual
line between the farms, He then set
his fences accordingly he says.
Mr.. Houghton placed the use of the
land taken by Mr.. Barr at $50, claim
ed cutting down of trees and other
loss, the total coming to around 1925.
Attorney Clementson who said he
was i'll, was in his best ironical vein
when he plead before the jury in Mr..
Harris behalf. He referred to the
Houghton place as the Ancestral
acres" and Mr.. Houghton as Baron
Houghton." He said it took three days
to try petty case and termed the
action a dispute over sage brush and
cactus" He spoke Of his client as
the rough buccaneer, Bill Barr, and
told how the "roughneck' Barr had
invaded the ancestral acres" of Mr..
Hougton
"On these acres Baron Houghton
tethered the Houghton billy goat"
Mr.. Clementon sald Going en- TO de-
scribe how the piratical Barr had pro-
famed the ancestral acres"
Mr.. ClementsOn spoke of Mr..
Houghton musing over his wrongs at
Cassville until summoned at night fall
by the blowing of whistles from the
stills on the Iowa side, summoning the
crews to change work. This drew fire
from Attorney Carthew, who said that
a Mr.. Galloway had been more inter
ested in the stills, the latter being q
saloon keeper, than Mr. Houghton.
The persifiage caused much amuse-
ment in court.
The general conclusion of the coury
attaches and spectators is that neither
party won victory. The answers of
| the jury to various questions pro-
pounded by the court are as follows:
/. Had the plaintiff and his prede-
cessOrs in title been i'll the actual, eX-
elusive adverse possession of all the
land lying Immediately south of the
fence which divided the lands of the
plaintiff in the northwest quarter Of
the northwest quarter of section 81
from the lands of the defendant in the
southwest "a of southwest quarter OF
section 16, for 20 years or more prior
Ito the removal of said fence by the de-
PENDANT in 1911, AnsWer-Yes.
2. Had the plaintiff been in the ac-
tual exclusive, adverse possession OF
all the land lying Immediately west of
the fence which divided the lands Of
the plaintiff in the northeast quarter
of the southeast quarter of section II
from the lands of the defendant in the
northwest quarter OF the southwest
quarter Of section 16, for more thaa
20 years or more prior to the remov-
al of a portion of said fence by the
defendant in 1918? Answer-Yes.
3. Does the survey made by Mr.
Appleby establish the section line be-
tween said sections 16 and 81?
Answer-Yes.
4. Does the survey made by Mr..
App1eby establish the section line be-
tween said sections 16 and II?
Answer-Yes.
s. Ii the court determines that the
plaintiff is entitled to judgment in
what sum do you assess the plaintiffs
damages? Answer-None.