APPEAL PROM TÍIE COURT OP THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, JUDGE WATTS PRESIDING.

This is an action to recover a raft of timber, which the plaintiff alleges the defendant took forcible possession of in the state of Arkansas, and brought to the city of Lafayette for sale. He alleges that he is the true owner, and prays judgment that it be decreed to belong to him, and in the mean time that it be sequestered.

The defendant, Isaiah Walker, answered separately; pleaded a general denial, and averred that he was the true owner, and prays to be restored to, and quieted in his possession of said raft.

The other defendants disclaimed ownership, and were made witnesses for the defendant on the trial.

The suit was first instituted in the Parish Court for the parish of Jefferson.

The testimony is indefinite and contradictory. It appeared, that the plaintiff got out and procured the timber for the raft, and that his tools, clothing, and bedding were on the raft when the defendant took possession of it.

It further appeared, that Young had sold or agreed to sell this timber to one Hodge, who died about the same time, and it was taken into possession by one W. Walker, as administrator of Hodge, who sold it as such, and it was bought by his brother, the defendant.

George Walker, who testifies to the sale to Hodge, also swears that Hodge declared he had returned the timber to Young, when one King wished to buy it of him.

Young endeavored to assert his right in Arkansas, by arresting and charging the defendant with a criminal offence, for taking the timber, but was unable, as is said, from local difficulties, to put the law in force.

Upon heaving the whole evidence, and examining many of the witnesses in court, the parish judge was of opinion the plaintiff was entitled to recover. From judgment rendered against him the defendant appealed to the District Court. ° rr

> On reviewing the evidence of the case, the district judge, after balancing much between the parties, in consequence of the conflicting and indefinite character of the testimony, finally concluded that the plaintiff ought to recover; and from judgment rendered in the plaintiff’s favor, the defendant appealed.

insisted that the defendant came to this state in the open possession of the raft, and publicly claimed it as his own. It is personal property, and bis possession is evidence of title. None but a good and better title could talce it from him. The plaintiff has shown none. His witnesses are interested, without credit, and their testimony contradictory.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress