to do with it and was satisfied in my own mind that an adult Indian who was about to get some money was incompetent and knew in my own mind it was going to be taken away from him as soon as he got it, that I would file petition in court to have him declared incompetent before that money got into his hands. I think that ought to be done. The CHAIRMAN. That is all, Judge. IN THE COUNTY COURT WITHIN AND FOR CREEK COUNTY, STATE OF OKLAHOMA In the matter of the estate of Palmer Tiger deceased full-blood No. 656. Probate No. Transcript of the evidence on the hearing for the sale of real estate before Hon. Ben Braden, judge of the county court, Creek County, Okla. Appearances: R. K. Robertson, of Sapulpa, Okla., appeared for the petitioner, Fannie Tiger, née Hawkins. Carey S. Cowart, county court reporter, courthouse, Sapulpa, Okla. Be it remembered, That heretofore, to wit, on the 24th day of January, A. D. 1923, the above-entitled and numbered cause came on for hearing before the Hon. Ben Braden, county judge, upon the petition heretofore filed herein by Fannie Tiger, née Hawkins, for the sale of certain land belonging to her. Whereupon the following proceedings were had: Mr. ROBERTSON. This matter coming on to be heard before the county judge of Creek County, Okla., on the petition of Fannie Tiger, née Hawkins, in which she alleges and states that thtrough inheritance she inherited an undivided one-half interest in and to the south half of the northeast quarter of section 5, township 15 north, range 9 east, and that she has sold her undivided halfinterest and executed a deed thereto to C. P. Davis and Ellis Slyman, and the petitioner appearing in person and by her attorney R. K. Robertson, and the said C. P. Davis and Ellis Slyman appearing in person, and thereupon the court ordered a hearing upon said petition, and thereupon the following witnesses were sworn and examined: Fannie Tiger, née Hawkins; W. L. McEwen; and R. P. Martin. And thereupon it appearing to the court that said Fannie Tiger, née Haw kins, can not intelligently speak the English language, Willie Vance, who appeared to the court as a person who could speak both the English and the Creek language, and who could interpret the Creek language into the English language, was thereupon sworn under the following oath administered by the court: The COURT. Do you solemnly swear that you will truly and correctly interpret the testimony of Fannie Tiger, née Hawkins, given in the Creek language, into the English language, and that your evidence will correctly iterpret to the court her testimoy from the Creek language into the English language, and you will so report to the court? WILLIE VANCE (the interpreter). Yes. Mr. ROBERTSON. And thereupon, Fannie Tiger, née Hawkins, was called as a witness, and having been, through the interpreter, first duly sworn to testify to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, testified as follows: By Mr. ROBERTSON : Q. You may state your name.--A. Fannie Tiger, née Hawkins. Q. Fannie Tiger, née Hawkins? The COURT. Fannie Tiger, née Hawkins. Q. Where do you live?-A. Stays close to Bristow. Q. How far from Bristow?-A. Four miles from Bristow. Q. Are you married or single?-A. Single. Q. Have you ever been married?-A. Yes; I have been married once. Q. How many times?-A. Once. Q. Who to?-A. She says he is dead. Q. What?-A. Her husband dead. Q. Who to, what was his name?-A. Palmer Tiger. Q. Is Palmer Tiger living of dead?-A. He is dead. Q. When did he die?-A. She don't know when he died. Q. About when? A. About four year. Q. About how long?-A. Four year. Q. Four years?-A. Four years. Q. Where where did he die?--A. He died in his own house. Q. Whereabouts?-A. Well, out there where she is living right now. Q. What town?-A. From Bristow. Q. Is that in Creek County, Okla.?—A. Yes. Q. Creek County, Okla. When did she did she have any children by her and Palmer Tiger during their married life?-A. No. Q. Did Palmer Tiger leave any father or mother at the time of his death? A. They died before he died. Q. No father or mother?-A. No father or mother. Q. Did Palmer Tiger leave any brothers or sisters living?-A. He got two brothers and one sister. Q. What are their names?--One named Martha Tiger. Q. Martha Tiger.-A. George Tiger. Q. George Tiger.-A. Thomas Tiger. Q. And Thomas Tiger. Are they living at this time, if you know?—A. Yes; they are living. Q. Did Palmer Tiger leave any real estate in Creek County at the time of his death?--A. Yes. Q. Did he leave the south half of the northeast quarter of section 5, township 15, range 9 east at the time of his death? A. Yes. Q. Have you ever conveyed any part of your interest in that real estate since his death? A. No; he never sold. Q. I will ask you if you didn't on the 24th day of January, 1923, convey all of your right, title, and interest in and to the land previously described to C. P. Davis and Ellis Slyman? A. Yes. Q. And you are to receive therefor the sum of $4,000? A. Yes. Q. What answer?-A. Yes. Q. She did. And this is your signature on that deed [exhibiting deed to the witness, who examines said deed]?-A. Yes. Q. And you are satisfied with that examination? A. Yes. Q. And you want the county court of Creek County to approve it? A. Yes. Q. Do you read and write the English language?-A. No. Q. Does she write her name?-A. Uh huh [affirmative]. Q. And this deed was read to you before you signed it?-A. Yes. Q. And this petition was read to you, for the approval of this deed, before you signed it? A. Yes. Q. And she knows the contents thereof?-A. Yes. Q. And you are satisfied with that consideration?-A. Yes. Mr. ROBERTSON. That is all. Any questions by the court? The COURT. No questions. Mr. ROBERTSON. And thereupon Paul Martin was called as a witness before the court. R. P. Martin, called as a witness before the court, having been first duly sworn to testify to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, was examined by Mr. Robertson and testified as follows: Q. You may state your name.-A. R. P. Martin. Q. Where do you live, Mr. Martin?-A. Bristow, in Creek County, Okla. Q: What is your business or occupation, or vocation?-A. Real estate. Q. Are you acquainted with the south half of the norteast quarter of section 5, township 15, range 9 east? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you ever been upon the land?-A. I have never been on it. I have been in sight of it and around it. Q. Have you ever been in the vicinity of that land?-A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know what land is selling for out in that vicinity at this time?A. Yes, sir. Q. From your knowledge and your experience in the real estate business, would you say that $4,000 was an adequate, just, and equitable consideration for an undivided one-half interest in that land mentioned?-A. I do, sir. Q. Would you give more than that for it?-A. I would not. Mr. ROBERTSON. Any questions by the Court? The COURT. No questions. (Witness excused.) Mr. ROBERTSON. And thereupon L. W. McEwen was called as a witness. L. W. McEwen, called as a witness, having been first duly sworn to testify to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, was examined by Mr. Robertson, and testified as follows: Q. Mr. McEwen, you may state your name.-A. L. W. McEwen. Q. Where do you reside?-A. Bristow. Q. Are you acquainted with the south half of the northeast quarter of section 5, township 15, range 9 east? A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you ever been upon that land? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you know its value from an agricultural and oil standpoint?-A. Yes, sir. Q. Have you been dealing in oil and gas leases in that immediate vicinity?— A. Yes, sir. Q. And have you been dealing in agricultural lands in that immediate vicinity?-A. I have. Q. Knowing the land as you say, you having been upon it and knowing the value of oil and gas leases in that vicinity, and knowing the value of land in that vicinity for oil and gas possibilities, and knowing the land for agricultural purposes, would you say that an undivided interest in that land, that $4,000 would be a just, adequate, and equitable consideration for said land? A. Yes, sir; I would. Q. Would you give that for it?-A. No; I wouldn't. Q. And you think that would be a just, fair, and adequate consideration?— A. I do. (Witness excused.) Mr. ROBERTSON. And thereupon Fannie Tiger, née Hawkins, was recalled for further examination. Fannie Tiger, née Hawkins, recalled for further examination, having been previously duly sworn, was further examined by Mr. Robertson, and testified, through the interpreter, Willie Vance, as follows: Q. Fannie, you are satisfied with the consideration that you are to receive for this land? A. Yes. Q. Have you ever been offered any more money for this land?—A. No; not any more money. Q. And you are satisfied and you want this court to approve your deed?A. Yes. (Witness excused.) Mr. ROBERTSON. And thereupon, let the record show, that the deed was presented to the court, in open court, and thereupon the court affixed his signature and his seal to said deed. And thereupon, let the record further show, that the sum of $4,000 was tendered to the court for the court to count the same, and it was thereupon counted and found to be correct and thereupon same was delivered in open court to Fannie Tiger, née Hawkins, by the court, and thereupon it was the order of the court that the said deed made and executed by Fannie Tiger, née Hawkins, on the 24th day of January, 1923, conveying an undivided onehalf interest in the allotment of Palmer Tiger, deceased, same being in the south half of the northeast quarter of section 5, township 15 north, range 9, east, to C. P. Davis and Ellis Slyman, is approved by the court and his seal thereunto affixed, as is further shown in evidence by order of this court signed as of this date. Which wass all the evidence offered and introduced, and proceedings had, on the hearing of the said matter. CERTIFICATE OF THE REPORTER I, Carey S. Cowart, official shorthand reporter within and for the county court of Creek County, State of Oklahoma, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing nine pages of transcript is a full, true, correct, and complete copy and transcript of the shorthand notes taken by me on the hearing of the above styled and numbered matter had before the Hon. Ben Braden, judge of the county court within and for the county of Creek and State of Oklahoma, on the 24th day of January, 1923. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand this the 24th day of January, A. D. 1923. CAREY S. COWART, Official Shorthand Reporter County Court, Creek County, Okla. ORDER Be it remembered, That on this 24th day of January, 1923, this matter coming on to be heard upon the petition filed herein by Fannie Tiger, née Hawkins, in which the said Fannie Tiger, née Hawkins, alleges and states that she is a full-blood citizen of the Creek Nation, enrolled as such opposite roll No. 2063 of the rolls as compiled by the Dawes Commission, in which she states that Palmer Tiger was a full-blood citizen of the Creek Nation, enrolled opposite roll No. 3937 as compiled by the Dawes Commission, in which she states that Palmer Tiger is a member and citizen of the Creek Nation received by virtue of his citizenship and as a part and parcel of his distributive share of the tribal lands of the Creek Nation the following lands to wit: The south half of the northeast quarter and the north half of the southeast quarter of section 5, township 15, range 9 east, Creek County, Okla. That the said Palmer Tiger died intestate on the above-described premises in Creek County, Okla., on the 1st day of October, 1919, and that she married the said Palmer Tiger prior to his death, and as his wife inherited an undivided one-half interest in and to said real estate; in which she further alleges that she is entitled to an undivided one-half interest in said lands; in which she further alleges and states that she has given a deed to her undivided one-half interest to C. P. Davis and Ellis Slyman, covering the south half of the northeast quarter of section 5, township 15 north, range 9 east. That she presents said deed to this court for its approval; and the said Fannie Tiger, née Hawkins, appearing in person and by her attorney, R. K. Robertson, announces ready for the hearing of said petition as to the value of said lands and as to the reasonableness of said consideration; and the said C. P. Davis and Ellis Slyman appearing in person; and all parties announce ready for hearing. And thereupon the said Fannie Tiger, née Hawkins, and their witnesses were sworn by the court. And thereupon they were examined in open court as to the value of said lands and as to their satisfaction of the consideration; and other witnesses were sworn and examined as to the reasonableness of said consideration as to the value of said lands; and the court after hearing all the testimony and after having examined the petitioner in open court, and other interested witnesses, as to the value of said lands, and after due and careful consideration of all the evidence aduced, the court finds that the said Fannie Tiger, née Hawkins, as the wife of the said Palmer Tiger, deceased, did inherit an undivided one-half interest in and to said lands. And the court further finds that the consideration offered and the deed offered to this court for approval, and the consideration therein mentioned, is just, adequate, and equitable; and thereupon the said C. P. Davis and the said Ellis Slyman paid to the said Fannie Tiger, née Hawkins, the sum of $4,000 in cash, in open court; and after the said Fannie Tiger, née Hawkins, in open court and in the presence of witnesses had received said consideration, It is the order and judgment of said court that the said consideration mentioned in said deed is just, equitable, and fair in proportion to the value of said lands as to other lands so similarly situated, and the consideration having been paid in open court and the said Fannie Tiger, née Hawkins, having accepted the consideration in open court paid to her in cash in view of the court, and counted by the court in her presence and in the presence of witnesses, It is, therefore, the judgment and order of this court that the said warranty deed made and executed by the said Fannie Tiger, née Hawkins, on this, the 24th day of January, 1923, signed by her in the presence of R. P. Martin and Grace Lightfoot, as shown by said warranty deed, it is hereby by this court approved in open court under and by virtue of the authority vested in him by the Constitution of the United States and the acts of Congress made in pursuance thereof, and the special act of May 27, 1908, and the said deed is delivered by this court to the said C. P. Davis and Ellis Slyman; and the consideration thereof is delivered to the said Fannie Tiger, née Hawkins, by this court in open court, and said deed is hereby ordered approved, confirmed, and ratified. [SEAL.] BEN BRADEN, County Judge of Creek County, Oklahoma. STATEMENT OF MR. FRED SPEAKMAN, COUNTY JUDGE OF TULSA COUNTY, OKLA.-Resumed Mr. SPEAKMAN. I see through the daily press where the Indian Rights' Association has mentioned undertakers. That was a case of a full-blood Indian and I imagine the association predicated that statement upon the case. The CHAIRMAN. Is it the general rule or exception? Mr. SPEAKMAN. This was an exception. An Indian by the name of Willie Benhill died in Sand Springs, in Tulsa County, and there was a large funeral bill to the administrator of his estate, which was turned down. The undertaker filed suit in my court, and the testimony showed that his mother and brother went over to the undertaker. I think every rich Indian wants to get paraphernalia for his funeral. The testimony showed that this old lady and the brother each testified that he did not have but a single casket in stock that was sufficient, and they insisted on his ordering a bronze casket from St. Louis, fifteen hundred pounds, by express, and the testimony further showed that they insisted and he employed from Tulsa five automobiles to haul flowers from Sand Springs to the cemetery at Tulsa, hired a choir to go there. The testimony also showed that was his request, that he be given a splendid funeral, and in view of the fact that it was his money that was being spent, the mother and brother did not think that it was anything but just and proper. The testimony showed that the undertaker charged him no more than an ordinary man in buying those goods. They insisted on having this casket, and I think the funeral cost was $4,000 or $6,000. The CHAIRMAN. There is no law to prevent them doing that? Mr. SPEAKMAN. I think the Indian association predicated it upon that. I have seen it in print before. The CHAIRMAN. Was any official of the State or Government responsible for that? Mr. SPEAKMAN. I remember when the brother was on the witness stand, the attorney said it was a great funeral. He said “it was the best I ever saw." Mr. BRADEN. On that same case I think it was included in that report where the lawyer had a contract of 25 per cent recovery; before I went in office the contract was made. The attorneys recommended $7,500. I allowed him $9,000 in all. They appealed from my court and got a larger fee. As a matter of fact that lawyer who got that fee did some excellent work. I disagreed and refused to recognize the contract. The CHAIRMAN. Is that the case where the probate attorney recommended $20,000 fee? Mr. BRADEN. I do not remember whether he recommended $20,000. At least he did not object. Mr. DEICHMAN. That was before you went into office. Mr. BRADEN. The contract was before I went into office. I cut that down to $9,000. Mr. HASTINGS. Appeal was taken to the district court and the district court raised it to $20,000. Mr. BRADEN. The special district judge raised it to $20,000. |