Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The frontier. (O'Neill City, Holt County, Neb.) 1880-1965 | View Entire Issue (Oct. 3, 1901)
VOLUME XXII. O’NEILL, HOLT COUNTY. NEBRASKA, OCTOBER 3, 1901. NUMBER 14.
| LAND SYNDICATE EXPOSED—COUNTY OFFICERS IMPLICATED—POP PAPERS CET S9,472.64 |
The Frontier promised its readers last week that it
would at au early date enter more exhaustively into the
subject of the tax lien foreclosure business that is being
carried on by the populist land grabbers’ association of
Holt county. The following article which appeared in
the Stuart Herald of September 13, and which was
written by a member of the O’Neill laud syndicate, sent
to Stuart for publication and republished in the Holt
County Independent of September 20, will be used as
a text for the sermon we will now preach, and we ven
ture the opinion that none of the corrupt gang will go
to sleep while reading this discourse. Here is the article
The Bariley-Scott ring that dominated and controlled the
republican convention denounced the method of lax fore
closures now being carried on by the populist administration
as a laud grabbing scheme. This is a very old cr; of theirs.
^ Thay made the same cry two years ago. The fact of the tnat
■ ter is, it is utterly impossible for anybody to “grab” any land
under the law.****l'be sheriff advertises the laud for sale and
every farmer in the couuty lias a chance to bid on it. Many
tanners all over Holt county have got lands to add to their
rauches on these tax foreclosures and more will get them every
We have known for some time that there has been
more or less fraud uud corruption practiced in this per
nicious system of tax foreclosure but we had uo idea of
its magnitude, aud from our recent investigations we
are simply appalled at the stupendiousuess of the cor
ruption that is being carried on by some of our county
officers and other members of the laud syndicate.
To many, the real nature of the couuty foreclosures for
delinquent taxes is not fully understood. A brief sum
mary of the important features of the litigation may not
be out of place here.
There is no statutory provision authorizing the county
attorney to bring auy such action or adopt this method
to collect delinquent taxes. The plan was conceived by
Mike Harrington aud ex Couuty Attorney llutler, they
getting their inspiration from a decision of the supreme
court in which the court indicates that the couuty can
maintain au action at auy time to enforce the collection
of delinquent tax. The supreme court has never passed
squarely on the questiou, however, aud there is much
difference of opinion arnoug the attorneys as to whether
or not the actions are legal. This is about the only
county in the state in which the system is in vogue.
The first case filed in this couuty was by W. 11. But
ler, populist couuty attorney, on May 3, 1899, aud since
t which time there has been DOB cases filed in which the
’ couuty of Holt is plaintiff. We give below au itemized
statement of the cases filed, showing the name of the
defendant, numbers of the land, amount of printer’s fee
charged and amount of tax involved in each case.
Populist Couuty Attorney W. R. Butler had a contract
with the printers whereby he was to get 20 per cent of
the printers’ fees collected, notwithstanding the consti
tution of the state explisitly prohibits auy county officer
from receiving any sum above the salary allowed by
law. witn tins contract wim me primers oi course it
was tc Mr. Butler’s interest to commence as many cases
as possible and make the notices as long as possible,
thereby making the printer’s fee large, as he (Butler)
was to receive 20 per cent of it. Whether Mr. Mullen,
the present populist county attorney, has this same con
tract with the printers or not we do not kuow, but from
the number of cases he is tiling lately and the unneces
sarily long notices, it is reasonable to conclude that he
has. It will be seen from the statement here published
that the populist press of this county has received the
enormous sum of $9,472.64 as their share of the booty
in connection with this rotten deal, and it has been
.•livided, according to their own statements on file, as
Holt County Independent.'..$6,196 64
Atkinson Plain Dealer. 2,408 50
Ewing Advocate. 75» 00
Stuart Herald. 112 50
This sum is nearly one third of the amount of the
entire taxes involved in these cases. Of the 4o8 cases
published below showing the tax, the total amount of
tax involved is $30,391.72 and of this amount there has
been less than $12,000 collected. The total costs in the
same cases are $12,579.70, and of this amount it caL
readily be seen that the printers’ fees form the very
large per cent. It will be seen from the statement be
low that the printer’s fees in mauy instances amount to
much more than the tax involved. That the notices in
these cases have been unnecessarily long and the publi
cation fees exorbitant there can be no question. In the
last issue of The Frontier one of these notices for which
Eves charged $72 was reproduced and a notice we pre
pared containing the same subject matter printed be
side it, the legal fee for which would bo $10, and offered
to forfeit $25 if our notice was not a legal notice and
served the same purpose as the syndicate notice for
which Eves charged $72. If the “long drawn out” pro
cess has been worked with all the notices to the same
extent as with the one referred to the publication fees
charged are about seven times in excess of what they
should be, or about $8,082 more than should have been
charged. In view of this, is it any wonder that the
populist papers of the county and the land syndicate
are so clamorous for a coutiuuaton of this nefarious
system which is robbing many people of their property
and defrauding the county out of thousands of dollars
They attempt to justify their position by claiming
that they are benefittiug the county by collecting large
sums of delinquent taxes. We deny this, and point out
the fact that in the cases referred to less than $12,000
has been collected and in doing this there has been over
$9,000 in printers’ fees charged against the land. If
the ordinary and lawful way of collecting taxes had
been pursued, much more than this amount would have
been collected on the land involved in these cases and
the county would have had io pay no costs and would
not have been defrauded out of thousands of dollars in
taxes as has been the case by the foreclosure method.
In a great many of these cases where the land has
been sold to members of the syndicate they have sold
for just enough to pay the c"sts and the county has not
received a dollar for the taxes, and by reason of the sale
the taxes have been “stricken” from the tax books and
is so noted on the tax register. The school, township,
f< COUNTY, STATE AND IN FACT ALL THE TAXES HAVE BEEN EN
TIRELY ELIMINATED AND CHARGED OFF THE RECORDS WITH
OUT THE PAYMENT OF A DOLLAR. In many
other oases where the lands have not been sold the
county’s claim for taxes]has been transposed from a first
lieu against the laud to a secend lein by operation of
this abominable practice. By this transfer of its claim
from first to second place the claim of the
county has beou practically eliminated for
the reason that in many cases the laud is
poor and would not sell for enough to pay both costs
and taxes, and under the law and rulings of Judges
Harrington and Westover the costs are a first lien. By
this system of piling up excessive costs they not only
confiscate the land from its owner but defraud the
county out of its taxes.
The truth of this statement is strikingly illustrated in
case No. 6079 against the Commercial Investment Co.,
for the NYV4 aud \VJ SW4 Sec 4 and E 4 SE4 Sec. 5,
Twp. 31, range 15—320 acres. The tax against this
laud amounted to §174.26. Eves published the notice
for which he received $72. Editor Henry received $15
for publishing the sheriff’s notice. The total costs
amounted to $180. The laud was sold to T. V. Golden
on June 22,1900,for $180—just enough to puy the costs.
By this transaction Mr. Golden gets 320 acres of land
clear for $180; Sam Eves gets $72 for publishing the
notice,Lee Henry gets $]5 aud the county gets its claim
for taxes of $174.26 CANCELLED WITHOUT THE
PAYMENT OF A DOLLAK.
We would like Mr. Eves or auy member of the cor
rupt gaug of laud pirutes tell to us,if by this transaction,
the couuty has not been as effectively robbed out of
$174.26 as if one of the gang hud gone into the treasur
er’s office and taken the sum out of the cash drawer?
This is by no means the only transaction of this kind.
The record is full of them aud the loss to the county
runs into the thousands. We have not the space to call
attention to all of them but ia this article will call at
tention to but a few. Among the cases that appear
most damnable to us is a couple in which two of our
deputy couuty officials are directly implicated and in
which they have utterly failed to cover up their tracks.
In the case against Leauder Willhite No. 5339 for Sl£4
NW4 aud N4 NW4 Sec. 29, Twp. 31, range 12, the
amount of taxes against the land was $59.13, the total
costs $62.89 and the laud was sold on July 16, 1900, to
James A. Donohoe, populist deputy county treasurer,
for $67. A record of the deed can be found on deed
record 56 at page 424. Mr. Donohoe gave $4.11 move
than the costs for the land, and he settled the county’s
claim of $62.89 with this munificent sum of $4.11. The
balance of $52.78 is “stricken” from the tax list without
the payment of a dollar. Mr. Donohoe or some of the
gaug may attempt to justify this transaction by saying
this was a “public” sale, and he had a right to get the
laud for as little as possible. We deny this,and assert that
the way these sales are conducted is more in the
nature of a "private” sale as they are generally made
when no one is present except some one of the gang.
Instances have occurred where farmers or outsiders have
appeared to bid on laud and some member of the cor
rupt land syndicate would bid the land up for more thah
it was worth and beyond the reach of the farmer, and
then when the farmer left, the land syndicate man who
bid the land in would refuse to take it and the land
would be again advertised und another sale would be
had at which no one was present except members of the
land syndic ite and they would get the land at their own
price. Futhermore, this claim would offer no possible
excuse for Mr. Donohoe, who is an officer of the county
whose sworn duty it is to protect the interests of the
county and see that the taxes nre collected. For his
services the county pays him $700 per year, The land
was certainly worth more than the taxes and costs, as it
was appraised for much more by the sheriff and apprais
ers,and Mr. Donohoe should at least have paid enough to
protect the county’s claim, instead of being a party to
defrauding the county out of $58.78 by this system of
Another case similar to the above is that of Deputy
County Clerk Casper Englehaupt who bought the land
in case No. 5556 involving S\\\ Sec. 5-26-13 on June
6, 1900. The taxes involved amounted to $71.41, costs
$91.16 making a total of $162.27. He paid $127 for
the land, which amount paid the costs and $35.57 was
left to liquidate the tax claim of $71.41. In this ease
the county was beaten out of $35.57 and that amount of
tax “stricken” from the records without the payment of
a dollar, notwithstanding Mr. Englehaupt’s sworn duty
is to protect the interests of the county for which service
he is paid by the tax payers of the county. Mr. Eng
lehaupt can not consistently claim that he paid for the
laud all it was worth as the appraisement was for$200 and
the records show that he sold the land to Anna Gapter
for $200 on November 22, 1900, a record of which can
be found on deed record 57 at page 356. He “touches”
the county for $35.57 and makes a “rake off” of $73 on
the transaction, while drawing his salary and $5 per
month rent for his typewriter from the county. Another
case in which a county official was directly interested
is that of ex-Supervisor W. 13. Cooper, who, while in
office, on Juno 25, 1900, bought the NEJ of Sec 21-26
12 for $80, which was just the amount of the costs, and
the county thereby lost its entire claim of $126.27,
and that amount was “stricken” from the tax books.
What do the tax payers of Holt county who are not in
the ring think of this method of “collecting” the tax on
The tracts of land that have been sold to Mike Mc
Carthy, ex chairman of the populist county central
committee, in which the county has lost its taxes are too
numerous to mention and we will refer but briefly to a
few of them. Case No. 5548 involving NEJ Sec. 33,
Twp. 32, range 15, was sold to Mr. McCarthy for $44 on
April 23, 1900, and of course by this operation the
county’s claim of $57.44 was cancelled without the pay
ment of a dollar. Casa No. 5501 for the SEJ and
SEi SE^ 13-33 14 in which the county had a tax claim
of $59.55 was on Juno 12, 1900 sold to McCarthy for the
munificent sum of ONE DOLLAR.
Think of it, Mr. Tax Payer! Mr. McCarthy was mag
nanimous enough to pay tho county one dollar for its
tax claim of $59.55’ and he got a clear deed to 120 acres
M. F. Harrington—that prince of reformers and re
cognized head of the land syndicate—has done a pretty
profitable business in this line. He bought the S.J N£
and N^ SW.'f 6 26-11, being Case No. -for $225.49
which amount was just sufficient to pay taxes and costs.
Mike McCarthy was one of the appraisers who apprais
ed this laud aud of course he was a “disinterested”
appraiser as the law provides the appraiser should be.
In the case in which E. C. Covell is defendant, involv
ing the NF-J 0 28-9, Harrington bought the land on
February 2, 1900, for $312, which was just enough to
pay taxes and costs. The records shows that on April
9, 1900, 07 days after purchase,he sold the land to Geo
W. Hutton for $2,400. A “rake off” of $2,088 on an
investment of $312 for 07 days is not so bad. A record
of this deed, can be found in deed record 55 at
Is it at all strange, Mr. Tax Payer, that Mr. Harring
ton is such an earnest advocate of this system of collec
The Herald says in the article referred to: “Many
farmers all over Holt county have got lands to add to
their ranches on these tax foreclosures and moro will
get them every mouth.” This is a case where the
"farmer” is getting the benefit by paying $2,088 more
for the land than it was sold for 00 day, previous at one
of these “public” sales. While on this point we wish to
take this occasion to deny most emphatically that by
this system the “farmers” are getting an opportunity to
“add to their ranches,” and the records will bear out
this statement. Out of all the sales that have been
made in these county foreclosures there has been but
seven “farmers” that have bought land at these “public”
sales, aud for the information of the public we give
their names. They are, W. B. Cooper, M. Libe, John
Carr, Austin Hynes, C. Coyne, J. Sullivan and A. Rois.
Most all the other sales have been made to the mem
bers of the land syndicate, such “farmers” as Mike
Harrington, Mike McCarthy, T. V. Golden, ex-County
Attorney W. R. Battler, County Judge Sel&h, Ed S.
Eves, John Morrow, Deputy County Clerk Casper En
glepaupt, and Deputy County Treasurer James A. Don
ohoe. These are the brawny, bronzed sons of toil that
are “getting the land to add to their ranches.” The
facts are that the farmers are getting thoroughly
farmed by this system of foreclosures, as the members
of the land syndicate are getting titles to thousands
of acres of land in the county at a cost of $50 to
$350 per quarter section. The land in many instances
lies adjoining seme farmer who can scarcely do
without it. This the members of the land syndicate
well know and they compel the farmer to buy the
land at a price many times greater than what they
paid for it. If they are unable to sell the land to
the farmer they compel him to pay rent for the
land he has previously had the free use of when the
land was owned by a non-resident. If this system
continues a great while at the rate it is now going
it will not be long until most of the unoccupied
land in the county will be controlled by this heartless
gang of land pirates and the farmers of the county
will be at their mercy for land on which to range
their stock. How many farmers in the county are
their that have not been importuned by some member
of the land syndicate within the past two years to
buy or rent a piece of land that has been acquired by
this infamous system?
This same gang or land pirates are now writing letters ana
going over the county importuning the farmers to vote for
the populist ticket, for its election means a continuation of
this pratice—and a continuation of the pratice means thous
ands of dollars into the pockets of the members of the land
syndicate. This gang will tell the farmers that the republi
can party have been corrupt in this county, but they will not
mention the high handed corruption that is now being carried
on bv populist officials. Let the voters and tax payers be not
deceived. The republican party has nominated a ticket made
up of as good men as there is iu the county and their election
insures ur honest and economical administration of the affairs
of theco..nty and an immodiale stop put to this infamous
system of tax forecloures.wherebythe county is being defraud
ed out of thousands of dollars. This matter seems of so much
importance to the tax payers of Holt couuty, that if there are
anv who doubt the statements made herein, we would suggest
that they call a mass meeting of the voters and tax payers of
the county, and let them appoint a committee to investigate
and see if every statement we have made is not true. We
have not told all or one tenth part of the results of our own
investigation, lack of space preventing, but we will have
more to say concerning this gang from time to time.
Following is an itemized list of the cases above referred to:
Plaintiff. Defendant. Laud. Involved. Fee.
Co.of llolt Waterman L. 1&2, B. 14 O’Neill $194.46 .
“ Wyman NE NE, 17, NE SE,
S% SE, 8-31-10 123.83 $40.00
•• 1 uiou T.Co SVo-NE, SVi NW, 7-32-10 44.48 .
“ Ws. U. F S’/c SE, N% NE
L. Co. 11-26-15 113.41 37.50
Nichell W'/j W>/2, 32-27-12 56.27 .
“ Minnesota EVa NE, SW NE, NW
F. M. Co. SE, 6-28-10 149.00 27.50
“ Ludviqson SW, 23-31-13 124.87 30.00
Com. I. Co. EVa SE, 5-31-15
NW, Si/a SW, 4-31-15 174.26 89.00
Sehmit SW, 35-29-14 56.50 25.00
“ Bliven NW, 10-30-15 57.95 44.00
“ Allen NW, 26-33-15 102.45 25.00
Toy SE, 10-26-14 67.48 20.00
Stapleton E% SE, SW SE, 18 &
NW NE, 19-32-15 100.00 10.00
“ Neb. L. &
T. Co. SW, 28-29-13 49.80 25.00
“ Barto NE, 20-29-12 137.54 30.00
“ Carberry L. 8, B. 9, Stuart 195.19 .
Dorsey NMj SW.SW SW,35-31-13 71.70 25.00
“ Thompson NE, 30-31-14 48.74 .
" Thompson SE, 11-30-14 52.78 .
Toncray EVa KVa, 14-25-14 78.30 18.00
“ Tierney L.11&12, B. 10 O’Neill 285.03 .
“ Traw .NW, 35-29-15 97.98 30.00
Ws. U. F.
& T. Co. SW, 4-31-12 99.69 25.00
“ Ws. U. F.
& T. Co. SW, 10-30-15 57.95 44.00
“ Wyman NE, 28-29-10 72.84 25.00
“ Webster NE, 26-33-15 50.88 22.50
“ Wheeler SVi SVa. 7 30-14 37.32 .
“ West SW, 6-28-12 106.03 25.00
“ Whelan NE, 17-29-9 75.64 .
“ Wyman SW. 21-32-9 58.75 25.00
“ Wells SE NE. NE SW, N’Va SE,
3-28-16 46.80 20.00
*• Warner SW, 8-32-14 19.29 20.00
“ Warner S>/_. SE, 21 & N'/i NE,
28-28-14 55.68 22.50
“ Wright NE, 1-28-13 41.09 25.00
“ Fletcher NE, 15-32-9 50.68 25.00
“ Gibson NW, 13-33-15 45.50 25.00
“ Grable NE, 17-32-10 38.89 25.tK)
“ Grove N>A S%, 28-29-15 9!l.09 30.00
“ Goddard SW, 6-33-14 44.61 32.50
“ Giiffin L. 1 of 27-34-14 20.60 .
“ Grable W>4 SW. SE SW, 7-31-9 35.51 20.00
• “ Gibson NE, 18-32-14 25.82 17.50
“ Gallagher SE, 22-29-12 168.50 25.00
“ Garver ESW, SW SW, NW
SE. 26-28-14 65.86 25.00
“ Gasnev S‘/a SVa, 4-28-16 72.62 .
' “ Garver SW, 14-30-15 62.(K) 32.50
“ Hass SE, 7-31-15 50.25 .
“ Hanna SE, 31-29-14 50.25 27.50
| “ Hartford, S. SE NW, E Vj SW, SW
B.I.I.Co. SW, 18-82-9 18.60 17.50
“ Hill NW, 30-30-16 77.31 .
“ Holliugsh’d N% SE, SE SE, 15,
NE NE, 22-29-9 50.06 20.00
Howard NW, 8-33-14 56.57 22.50
Hass SE, 31-31-14 73.31 32.50
“ Hanna SE, 27-29-10 62.75 30.00
’’ Hyde SE, 21-32-9 58.75 25.00
’’ Hayden SW, 23-32-14 27.84 17.50
Heaton SW, 35-29-10 89.21 27.50
“ Hanna NE, 35-29-16 79.54 30.00
" Johnson SW, 5-33-14 46.34 22.50
Johnson NE, 25-29-10 113.46 .
“ Jereome E Vj SW, SW SW, SW
SE. 30-32-10 57.68 22.50
•’ Kester NW, 20-32-10 27.22 25.00
“ Kadder NE, 22-29-10 02.01 10.00
Lewis EVj EVj, 23-31-11 72.23 30.00
Lemlrum SE, 29-30-16 59.24 20.00
1-lewis SVi SVj, 3-28-10 02.55 20.00
“ Moore SE SW, 8% SE, 8-32-10
SW SW, 9-32-10 42.33 25.00
Merrill W'/j W%, 20-31-15 50.00 .
“ Mann EVj SE, 7 & W'/j SW,
8-32-10 43.79 .
“ Miller S'/j SW, 20-31-13 25.00 15.00
Moline SE SW, N% SE, SW SE,
25-32-0 02.10 .
“ MeCahn NW, 22-30-12 73.74 7.50
“ McKee SVj NW, N'/. SW,
12-28-14 56.30 22.50
McCarthy S% SE, 14, NVj NE,
23-25-0 30.00 20.00
“ Neb. L. &
T. Co. NW. 30-31-14 59.97 .
“ Nation SVj SVj, 24-32-10 28.38 25.00
“ Northrop NVj SW, 33-34-14 24.57 22.50
Niven NE SE, SVj SE, 29-30-9 20.40 20.00
Nielmug NW, 17-32-15 43.23 17.50
“ Neb. L. &
T. Co. SE, 25-31-14 17.53 .
“ Omaha L.
It. Co. SE, 24-20-13 99.67 30.00
" Omaha L.
It. Co. NE, 24-31-14 74.91 .
“ Owens SE, 24-31-11 49.00 30.00
Oleaon NW, 11-31-14 123.44 25.00
“ I’aige SW NE, WVj NW, SE
NW, 7-29-12 48.25 20.00
“ Pratt SE, 18-33-14 42.10 .
•• Porter SE. 29-31-12 94.90 40.00
“ Paddock NW, 5-32-15 83.12 17.50
Russell N% NE, 24-29-12 14.55 lOjOO
Roose S'/j NE, 20-30-14 15.00 12.50
“ Rollins SW, 29-32-15 31.08 25.00
“ Roden SW, 5-29-9 61.08 .
“ ltawden NVj NVj, 24-20-15 44.62 25.00
“ Rogers SW, 28-28-14 55.56 25.00
Roberts L. 28, B. 22, O’Neill 505.00 20.00
“ Richards SE, 25-29-15 60.90 25.00
“ Rock I. P.
Co. SE, 20-30-14 68.70 25.00
“ Russell SE, 5-29-10 76.98 25.00
“ Russell SVj NE, EVj SE, SW
SE. 12-32-14 76.91 22.50
“ Strong SVj NE. NE SW, 17, SE
SE, 18-26-14 78.67 .
“ Slocum NVj NW, SE NW, 5-32-10 45.01 17.50
“ Swan L. I.
Co. I,. 5, 6, 7, 8, Sec. 3-35-15 72.55 27.50
“ Siler NE. 25-28-9 70.34 30.00
" Stock NW SE, SW NE, SE
NW, NE SW, 20-28-13 45.96 30.00
“ Schmit SE, 34-29-14 56.50 20.00
“ Scheiner SE SW, SVj SE, 15-32-10 26.69 20.00
“ Swan L. & Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, Sec.
I Co. 2-25-15 127.00 42.50
“ Swift W ^ NW. 26-28-16 35.65 10.00
“ Swinney SW, 18-32-10 45.38 27.50
“ Stevens SE SE, 21. N% NE, SE
NE, 28-27-16 115.57 27.50
“ Swift EV. NW, 26-28-16 35.65 10.00
“ Shell W % SE. 1-28-15 31.92 20.00
“ Sutherland SW, 17-31-14 57.09 27.50
Smith SE, 8-31-15 97.33 32.50
“ Thompson S% NW, E% SW,
10-26-14 71.00 .
“ Thceuwen SE. 6-31-14 109.27 25.00
“ Toncray NW, 21-28-12 42.04 37.50
“ Thompson EVj SW. W% SE,
14- 32-14 62.18 20.00
“ Curtis NE, 12-28-14 45.45 25.00
Inv. Co. SE, 17-27-12 40.06 25.00
“ Carr SVa NW, N% SW,
20-30-9 7.81 13.00
“ Conover NE, 27-29-16 62.70 25.00
“ Commercial N% NW. 27 & S'/j SW,
Inv. Co. 22-28-13 45;64 20.00
“ Conkle SW, 9-31-10 53.13 .
“ Cabtree NE, 33-34-10 49.59 31.50
Crew NE, 29-28-11 31.38 .
“ Caylor SW NE, SE NW, NE
SW, NW SE, 24-30-11 82.56 22.50
“ Clark SW, 13-29-13 11.12 10.00
“ Casteller SE, 30-30-10 67.44 27.50
“ Chester C. . .
G. T. &
S. D. Co. NE. 18-29-10 01.58 37.00
“ Alexander L. 6, B. 2, Inman 35.00 12.50
Inv. Co. NW NW, 6-25-14 89.64 32.50
“ Damon SW, 34-31-15 100.25 25.00
Dean NW, 8-31-14 68.25 25.00
“ Dorsey SW SB, NW NE, N%
NW, 7-26-13 124.81 .
“ Dorsey SW, 9-28-14 54.50 .
“ Dorsey NE, 33-28-13 27.07 .
Dorsey SW NW, N'/j SW, 5, SE
NE. 0-28-13 47.60 .
“ Dorsey NV. NE, SW NE,
24-28-14 49.28 20.90
“ Dorsey N% SW, N’/j SE,
26-29-11 76.27 35.00
“ Dorsey SW, 27-29-13 49.80 30.00
“ Dorsey SE. 5-28-12 55.70 37.50
“ Dorsey SE, 29-28-13 16.28 .
“ Dexter NW, 29-30-14 91.86 32.50
“ Davis SW. 6-31-14 108.59 25.00
Ellis NW NE, 3-32-16
W >/' SW, 35-33-16 92.00 27.50
“ Evans NW, 28-30-16 108.39 25.00
“ Edwards E>/. SE, 33-26-12 58.51 17.50
“ Folloitt NW, 27-31-14 48.59 32.50
Fitzgerald Lots 6, 7, 8, B. 9, O’Neill 190.80 17.50
“ Florell SE, 11-25-14 79.55 25.00
Flannigan Lot 23. B. 16, O’Neill 173 58 .
“ Beachly E% SW, W% SE,
15- 28-16 67.34 .
Bump SE NE. NE SE, 26-32-10 36.54 37.00
“ Ballou S.
B. Co. SW, 28-20-10 110.71 39.00
“ Boston U.
E.&T.Co. WVa WVa. 25-30-11 151.20 25.00
“ Barney N% SE, SE SE. 11-26-14 38.51 20.00
“ Baglcy SVj SE, 28-26-13 26.29 .
" Burrage W> . WV>, 27-32-12 58.30 37.00
“ Blake SE, 13-28-14 47.94 .
“ Bliven N% SW, 31-29-12 67.39 26.50
“ Bartholo- SW NE, S% NW, NW
mew SW, 24-33-14 55.80 34.50
“ BallouB.Co SW, 1-30-14 46.67 47.00
“ Butterfield SE NW. SW SW, NE
SW, SE SW, 22-31-12 56.00 39.00
“ Burr NW, 18-27-12 40.00 37.00
“ Butterfield EV» SW. 22-30-9 39.66 37.00
“ Cady L. Co. NE, 21-32-15 42.74 16.00
“ Coburn SE. 18-32-14 53.85 27.50
“ Nichols NE, 13-25-15 56.93 .
“ llarlan NMi SW, S% NW,
10-27-16 148.69 32.50
“ lliddenger NE. 34-25-15 31.35 .
“ Adams NW, 7-31-12 108.55 37.00
“ Allen NW, 35-28-14 46.79 37.00
“ Allen SW, 28-29-16 46.20 7.50
“ Allen SW, 5-28-14 49.47 .
’• Allen SW, 15-33-15 88.20
Allen SE, 23-30-14 61.40 .
Alden NE. 21-30-14 38.17 .
“ Adams SE, 8-27-12 39.83 30.00
“ Brown NE NE, 23, NW NW,
24-33-14 21.21 17.50
“ Bliven SW, 27-26-12 123.02 25.00
“ Burnett SE. 1-29-14 65.31 .
“ Brown NE. 14-33-16 46.98 34.00
“ Beebe NW, 15-29-9 61.53 25.00
“ Moore SW, 25-29-10 111.63 47.00
(CONTINUED ON PAGE EIGHT.)
Powered by Open ONI