Custer County. Tellurium Ming. & Mlg. Co., Poor Man Lode. Bunker Hill Cons. Mg. Co. of Colo., Concord Lode. Gilpin County. A. McLeod, Notaway Lode. Hal Sayr, Autocrat and Esperanza Lodes. Gunnison County. H. Beckurts, et al., Uncle Sam Lode. Hinsdale County. Hugh J. Alexander, et al., Dictator Lode. Lake County. Nos. 67, 69, 72, 76, 78, 81, 82, 83, 86, 89, 93, 96, 98, 99, 100, COPP'S LAND OWNER for this month reports the issuance of patents on the Cash Entries 101, 102, 106, 109, 112, 120, 125, 129, 130, 137. Desert Lands. numbered below, which patents have been sent to the below-named land-offices: ARIZONA. WASHINGTON TY. OLYMPIA. Nos. 5888, 5890, 5892, 4893, 5903, 5905, 5709, 5910, 5931,5934. 5935, 6595, 6596, 6599, 6600 to 6619 inclusive, 6621 to 6625 inclusive, 6627 to 6644 inclusive, 6646, 6647, 6653, 6656 to 6668 inclusive, 6671, 6673, 6674, 6675, 6676, 6679 to 6682 inFlorence and Tucson Series, Nos. 182, 196, 199, 200, clusive, 6688 to 6700 inclusive, 6702 to 6708 inclusive, 201, 204, 222. 6711 and 6715 to 6723 inclusive. ARKANSAS. Roseville Alta Cons. Mg. Co., Garfield and 15669, 15670. Roseville Lodes. Ouray County. American Midland Ming. & Mlg. Co. bean Lode. DAKOTA. Watertown Series, Nos. 2615, 2687, 2704, 2733, 2752, Carri-2756, 2762, 2764, 2812, 2834, 2835, 2841. Bessie Bascom Cons. Mg. Co., Little Park County. A. L. Pogue, Independence Placer. Pitkin County. T. J. Oliver, et al., Little Dick Lode. J. R. Burrows, et al., Baker Lode. Saguache County. Wm. P. Linn, Rawley Lode. San Juan County. FARGO. Red Lake and Chippewa Half-breed Scrip, No. 438, Nos. 1189, 1479, 1545, 1568, 1621, 1658, 1761, 1799, 1838, 1858, Nos. 1210, 1295, 1316, 1386, 1400, 1408, 1431, 1442, 1448, 1449, M. M. Engleman, et al., Lulu Carroll Lode. 4455, 4459, 4460, 4461, 4464, 4466, 4469, 4470, 4476, 4477, 4478, Nos. 2000, 2086, 2099, 2106. 2107, 2116, 2117, 2120, 2122, 2123, 2254, 2257, 2260, 2270, 2271, 2273, 2277, 2278, 2279, 2283, 2293, HURON. WISCONSIN. Nos. 16385, 16425, 16719 to 16722 inclusive, 16724, 16725, 16727 to 16743 inclusive, 16745 to 16750 inclusive, 16755 to 16788 inclusive, 16790 to 16798 inclusive, 16800 to 16807 inclusive, 16810 to 16830 inclusive, 16832 to 16935 inclusive, 16937 to 16958 inclusive, 16961 to 16975 inclusive, 16977 to 17007 inclusive, 17009 to 17058 inclusive. Nos. 16541 to 16561 inclusive, 16563 to 16593 inclusive, 16595 to 16601 inclusive, 16603 to 16651 inclusive, 16653 to 16702 inclusive, 16704 to 16718 inclusive. WYOMING. Nos. 71, 88, 118, 146, 169, 176, 178, 184, 185, 193, and Desert Lands Patents, Nos. 7, 10, 12, and 15. HOMESTEAD PATENTS ISSUED. COPP'S LANDOWNER for this month reports the following final numbers of Homestead Patents issued and sent to the below-named land-offices: COLORADO. Nos. 249, 553, 922, 1147, 1221. DAKOTA. Watertown series, Nos. 582, 583, 590. Nos. 458, 571, 577, 578, 579, 581, 584, 585, 586, 587, 589, 593, 597, 600. KANSAS. Nos. 2249, 3014, 3386, 4248, 4440, 4597, 4692, 4761, 4768, 4778, 4810, 4823, 4833, 4841, 4847, 4856, 4859, 4861, 4873, 4878, 4883, 4886, 4893, 4896, 4910, 4912, 4914, 4921, 4922, 4923, 4929, 4930, 4941, 4945, 4947, 4948, 4967, 5046, 5082, 5086, 5090, 5104, 5105, 5119, 5134, 5143, 5152, 5182, 5208, 5220, 5228, 5234, 5248, 5251, 5252, 5258, 5259, 5266, 5273, 5278, 5284, 5297, 5299, 5302, 5304, 5306, 5218, 5343. WA KEENEY. Hays City series, No. 70. MINNESOTA. Detroit and Crookston series, Nos. 527, 558, 569, 570, Watertown series, Nos. 2625, 2651, 2652, 2673, 2791, 2792, 582, 927, 928. 936, 957, 958, 959, 960, 969, 990, 1015, 1026, 1040, 1050, 1051, 1063. 1068, 1091, 1103, 1104. 1105, 1116, 1118, 1122, 2802, 2807. 1123, 1124, 1125, 1125, 1130, 1132 to 1137 inclusive, 1139, 1140, 1143, 1144, 1148, 1150, 1152, 1153, 1154, 1157, 1158, 1159, WATERTOWN. Nos. 704, 749, 2379, 2595, 2620, 2328, 2665, 2668, 2683, 2684 1160, 1161, 1163, 1165, 1168. 2712, 2715, 2736, 2767, 2771, 2772, 2777, 2831. KANSAS. No. 12254 in favor of Sarah E. Clarke. MINNESOTA. Sioux Half-Breed Scrip No. 485, A., R. and R. No. 173. Nos. 1868, 2184, 2185, 2195. MISSOURI. Nos. 42359 to 42371 inclusive, 42373, 42375, 42377, 42380, 42383 to 42387 inclusive, 42392 to 42398 inclusive, 42400, 42401, 42402, 42409. SPRINGFIELD. Nos. 79, 152, 21041, 27256, 29605, 29622, 29740, 30042, 3080231108, 31109, 31137, 31148, 31254, 31302, 31313, 31331, 31362, 31549, 31553, 31555, 31558, 31559, 31562, 31565 to 31570 inclu, sive, 31572, 31574 to 31582 inclusive, 31584, 31587, 31588, 31589, 31590, 31592, 31595, 31597, 31598, 31599, 31600, 31601, 31603, 31604, 31606 to 31613 inclusive, 31616, 31619. NEVADA. Nos. 21, 22, 25 Desert Lands. Nos. 30, 56, 78 and 82. Nos. 4805, 4906, 5105, 5134, 5139, 5142, 5148, 5151, 5159, 5160, Nos. 1169, 1171, 1173, 1174, 1175, 1178, 1180, 1182, 1186, 1193, 1194, 1195, 1198, 1201, 1206, 1207, 1209, 1211, 1214, 1215, 1216, 1218, 1220, 1223, 1224, 1226, 1227, 1230 1232, 1233. VOL. X. COPP'S LAND OWNER. MINES AND MINERALS. 117 WASHINGTON, D. C., JULY 16, 1883. No. 8. THIS paper furnishes more valuable law informa- in use for the transfer of United States ALL Registers and Receivers of the U. S. land offices and Special Agents are authorized to receive subscriptions for this paper. THERE was a novel exportation at San Francisco lately. Two hundred sacks of 118 orange peel, valued at $1,000, were shipped to Havre. It was the first shipment of the kind from that port, and is the more 119 Mary G. Peck, et al.—Searl et al. vs. Finn.......... 119 singular because the orange peel consumed Thomas M. Kile.... REPAYMENT. MISCELLANEOUS. Circular Instructions-Petition, Affidavits and 120 122 in the United States is imported, and in large part is from Southern France. Orange peel is worth about eight cents a 121 pound. Oranges are so plentiful in France, Spain and Italy, as well as in Florida and in the West Indies, that the peel is 122 stripped from the fruit in large quantities for bitters and marmalade, and the juice is used to make acids. It is estimated that 200,000 pounds of orange peel was 121 imported into New York last year. 122 123 125 123 126 127 Coey vs. State of California-Miami Indian Lands 128 Brunette et al. vs. Jiyere.. United States Circuit Court, Northern District of A Gigantic Timber Monopoly-Removal of the Mineral Patents Issued Cash Patents Issued Homestead Patents Issued.. PROFESSIONAL CARDS. 129 129 131 132 LAND PERSONALS. JUNE 15th No. of LAND OWNER gave the status of Gen. McCammon's assistants. Since then, Mr. Cooley, of Iowa, who was appointed to a $2,250 clerkship, under the late Act of Congress, has declined the appointment, and Judge N. S. Howe, an experienced lawyer, has been promoted to it. READ the card of Henry N. Copp on front of cover. F. M. HEATON, of Huron, Dakota, formerly of the General Land Office, is doing a fine business as land attorney and real estate agent. A PARTY of Richmond and Danville Railroad men have bought 2,000 acres of land in Orange county, Florida, and have organized an association to be known as the Kissmet Land and Improvement Company. The stockholders met in Richmond recently and organized by electing Sol. Haas president, and a board of direcThe cash capital of the company is $50,000, with the privilege to increase to $100,000. On their 2,000 acres they will build a large and elegant hotel, plant orange groves, build a railroad, and convert it generally into a Mecca for tourists and pleasure-seekers. tors. THE Dallas correspondent of the TimesDemocrat thus writes on the Public Lands of Texas. With the exception of that reserved for educational purposes, the pull'e domain of Texas is exhausted. The act A REGISTRY OF TITLES. Application has been made to the Legislature for the incorporation of the New York Title Company, an institution to be organized for the purpose of insuring real estate titles. There is no reason why a company should not be authorized to do an insurance business in titles, guaranteeing its patrons against loss for defects in the titles it insures, but the incorporation of such a company will not be sutli131 cient to protect the public from incon132 venience and expense and possible loss. At the present rate of entrance, the numPAGE ber of names of grantors and mortgagors of the Legislature of 1879, known as the entered in the indices of the Register's "Fifty Cents Act," wound up the busioffice in this city during the next ness. It was not until 1881 and 1882 that I ten years will be 200,000. The official speculators fully woke up to the full meansearchers depend upon their private in- ing of that suicidal law, and then they dices, and the accumulation of names pitched in and levied upon what was left makes the searches increasingly difficult, by the million-acre blocks-so that when while the loss of the private indices, or the Legislature now sitting passed a bill IV their removal through a change in officers, withdrawing public lands from market, IV might make the confusion almost hope- it would have taken the eye of a fox and IV less. The adoption of a new way of keep- the wing of a wild goose to find any not PAGE ing a registry of titles-that commonly surveyed, though it is said some may reI employed in transfers of stock, the old vest to the State for the reason that field III certificate being surrendered, with a mem- notes and first payments were not made in 11 orandum of assignment endorsed, and a IV new certificate being issued to the new IV owner-would greatly simplify the busiIv ness of the Register's office. The method PRACTICE. HEIRS OF DANIEL TROY VS. SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY. Party-Remittitur.-The defeated party in a case before the Interior Department is a party to the case until it is closed. He has the right to call attention to the manner in which the Secretary's decision is executed by the Commissioner. Relief.-After a case has been decided by the I have examined the proceedings had by your office in the case of the heirs of Daniel Troy vs. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, subsequent to my decision therein, referred to in your letter of the 25th ultimo. On the 28th day of February, 1881, the heirs aforesaid made application to purchase the land involved, under section 2 of the act of June 15, 1880. The defendant, the railroad company, resisted the application, claiming the land by virtue of its grant. The local officers rejected the application, but on appeal you granted it; and your decision in that respect was affirmed, on appeal to this Department, by decision of February 6th last, and the application to purchase under the provisions of said act was directed to be allowed. You state that on February 14, 1883, you transmitted a copy of my decision to the local office (Visalia, California), and directed that said heirs be allowed to purchase said land under the act aforesaid; that the next day the attorney for said heirs filed an application in your office to have the tract in question patented to Daniel Troy (deceased), under his homestead entry; and that on March 12, after a consideration of the facts, you revoked your letter of February 14th, and instructed the Register and Receiver to issue supplemental final certificate, in the name of Daniel Troy, to cover the land in question; that final certificate was accordingly issued April 11th, and approved for patent April 23d; and that by letter of the latter date the attorney for said railroad company requested your office to recall your said letter of March 12th, and to require said heirs to purchase the land under the act of June 15, 1880, aforesaid. You further state that on May 9th you advised the attorney for said railroad company, that the claim of the company to said land having been concluded by the decision of this Department, the question of the subsequent disposition of the land as between the heirs and the Government was one with which the company had nothing to do. It is claimed that the company has now cient facts to authorize the action now no standing in the case, and that the proposed by you; but after a case has action and motion on the part of the com- been heard and decided, and a particular pany should be dismissed. relief granted, your office is not at liberty to grant any relief or direct any action which you may think the party would have been entitled to upon the record if he had applied for it. The right of the company to be heard as to the execution of the final decision is evidently misapprehended by your office, and by the counsel for the heirs. When the record is returned to your Such practice as is now proposed would office from this Department, with its de- lead to great confusion and uncertainty. cision, and direction for the execution of This Department could not know whether such decision, it is in the nature of a re- the action directed by its decision was Can there be carried out, or some other action or mittitur in the law courts. any doubt about the right of a party, remedy substituted in its place, except by though defeated in the appellate tribunal, instituting inquiry in your office. In this to see that the decree of that tribunal is case the Department was not asked to executed as therein directed? And if the modify its decision, and was in no way tribunal to which the record is remitted advised of the proposed change, until its should attempt to execute the decree in a attention was called to it by counsel for manner different from that ordered, or to the defendant. substitute another remedy in place of it, would there be any doubt about the right of such party to move the superior tribunal to correct the proposed wrong execution of its decree? The decisions of the appellate tribunal are of no avail unless they are to be executed as made. If the opposite party is not permitted to move in such tribunal, there is no one that would have that right; for all others would be strangers to the record. It would often happen that the defeated party would suffer from a wrong execution of the decree. In the present case it may make no difference to the company whether the land in controversy passes to the heirs by virtue of a purchase or under an entry made by Daniel Troy in his life time. In another case the rights of the company, in respect to its land grant or the right to indemnity for the land lost by the particular decision, might be affected. A party, although the judgment is against him, has a standing in the case and a right to be heard, until it is finally closed by an execution of the decree. I must, therefore, decline to dismiss these proceedings, upon the ground that the defendant has no standing in the case. From what has already been said it may be inferred that the practice of your office in this case can not be approved. The application was to purchase the land under the relief act already cited. The party making it was represented by able counsel, and presumed to know the relief desired and to which the party was entitled. The case was considered upon no other ground, and upon the record furnished by your office, your decision was affirmed, and it was adjudged that the party was entitled to purchase under the act aforesaid. Your decision that the applicant had the right to purchase the land in question under said act, affirmed by me February 6th last, should be carried into effect; and your letter of March 12th, directing final certificate to issue under the homestead entry of Daniel Troy, and all proceedings subsequent, should be revoked. BENNETT VS. FURMAN. Practice-Appeal.-Under Rule 93 of the Rules of Practice in land cases, a copy of notice of appeal and specifications of error and argument are not required to be served on the opposite party when the appeal is taken to the Commissioner from the decision of the Reg ister and Receiver. SECRETARY TELLER to Commissioner McFarland, May 24, 1883. You transmitted to me on August 8th last, in pursuance of my letter of the 2d of same month, under Practice Rule 83, the papers in the case of Frank A. Bennett vs. Jas. C. Furman, involving certain lands in Sec. 24, Tp. 8, R. 42 E., La Grande, Oregon. It appears that Furman filed declaratory statement March 11, alleging settlement March 9, 1881, and that Bennett filed declaratory statement March 18, alleging settlement March 8, 1881. After due publication of notice, Furman offered his proof and payment on September 14, 1881, which were rejected because on the preceding day Bennett filed an affidavit of contest and protest against allowance of Furman's entry of the tract. In view of the testimony submitted at the hearing, the local officers recommended (November 4, 1881), that the contest be dismissed, and that Furman's entry be allowed. Bennett filed an appeal therefrom, on December 3d following, and on December 26th, Furman moved to dismiss the appeal, because copies of the notice of appeal, specifications of error and argument were not served on him. On April 13, 1882, you granted the motion, holding that such service was required by Practice Rule 93. This was erroneous. Rule 93 requires or this Department; and the defendant service of such papers only in appeals had not been heard upon that question. from your decisions to this Department, The record in this case may disclose suffi- and no rule requires their service on ap You now direct upon the same record, that the Register and Receiver issue a final certificate in the name of Daniel Troy, deceased, on his homestead entry The attorney for the company having made in 1867. That was not the remedy addressed a letter to this Department, applied for, nor was it considered by you proceedings have been stayed by my dilection until the questions thus raised could be determined. peal from the local officers to you. (Lynch vs. Merrifield, Copp, December, 1882.) You will, therefore, reinstate the case on Bennett's appeal, and consider the case on its merits; and in view of the long delay in its disposition, you will give it early attention. INSTRUCTIONS. Rule 35.-There is nothing obligatory in the rule. Registers and Receivers must exercise their discretion in permitting testimony in contested cases to be taken elsewhere than at the local land office. COMMISSIONER MCFARLAND to Register and Receiver, Watertown, Dakota, June 11, 1883. Relative to the proper construction of amended Rule 35 of Practice, you are informed that paragraph 1 is to be read as if there was a comma after the word "cases," in the first line. The rule contemplates that testimony in contested cases, as well as in hearings ordered by the Commissioner, may be taken before United States Commissioner, etc., near the land, when it shall be so ordered. There is nothing obligatory in the rule. Registers and Receivers must exercise their discretion in permitting testimony in contested cases to be taken elsewhere than at the local land office, being governed in every instance by the circumstances of the case. Preferably, testimony should be taken by the district land officers, and this should be the course pursued whenever it can be done without involving too much inconvenience and expense to the parties. The purpose of the amendment to Rule 35 was to provide a different method when great distance, or other good cause, renders the alternative course advisable. MINES AND MINERALS. Their certificate of relocation sets forth, during the period of publication required among other things, that it is made with- by Section 2325 of the Revised Statutes, out waiver of any previous rights, and to amounted to a waiver of all adverse rights secure all abandoned, interfering or over- which may have existed, and the law lapping claims. not only assumes, in such cases, that no They, by their counsel, now admit their adverse claim exists, but, "if publication probability to supply all the links neces- and attendant proceedings have been regsary to show by abstract that they have ular, all that might be set up by suit in title under the original location, and hence court has been adjudicated in favor of the they claim under the relocation of Decem- applicant." ber 22, 1880. Your decision holds that a relocator must show a complete and unbroken claim of title from the original locator, ending in himself, or prove abandonment of the property by the original locator, or his grantee; also that relocation, using the same name under which the original location was made, coupled with the attempt to furnish abstract of title from the original locator and grantees, shows that applicants claim as purchasers for valuable consideration, and therefore that the relocation confers no new title upon them. I am unable to concur in these conclusions. Publication is notice to the world of intention, and a challenge to any and all adverse claimants to come forward and assert their rights. No adverse claim having been filed in this case, all antecedent claims may, as already stated, be regarded as having been abandoned, and the question therefore becomes one solely between the United States and the applicants. The proceedings under the relocation appear to have been regular, and have been completed so far as applicants are concerned. They have tendered the purchase money, which has been accepted. Final certificate of entry has issued, and I see no reason why patent should not be granted as applied for under the relocation of December 22, 1880. Generally, I see no reason why a locator should be called upon to furnish any facts or data relative to a previous location upon the same ground, or why any inquiry If applicants based their title solely on should be instituted relative to antecedent their rights as purchasers, the regulation matter, except upon showing of irregular- of your office to which you refer might ity and of injury to material interests. call for consideration; but I find no rule The law applicable to adverse claims pro- or regulation, and no law, which, on the vides how and when such showing may be facts as they appear, would operate to premade in case any rights are liable to be in-vent the issuance of patent on the location fringed. made by the parties themselves. Your decision is accordingly reversed. In this case, applicants, by their admission of inability to furnish complete abstract of title under the original location, as required by your office, virtually waive all claim based upon said location, and rely solely upon their relocation. The proceedings pursuant to the relocation appear to have been regular. None of the apparently adverse interests appearing in the abstract of title were asserted pending publication under said relocation, nor have they been since, and no adverse claim can now be filed because of the limitation of law. Section 2325 of the Re MARY G. PECK ET AL. Relocation.-An applicant for patent, who a coowner relocated a mine in his own name, as single proprietor, is not obliged to show title back of such relocation; but if the proceedings are otherwise regular, and his former co-owners or other parties fail to assert an adverse claim, patent may issue in the appli-vised Statutes provides that "if no adverse cant's name. SECRETARY TELLER to Commissioner McFarland, June 19, 1883. I have considered the appeal of Mary G. Peck et al., from your decision of December 19, 1882, and February 7, 1883, holding for cancellation mineral entry No. 1882, upon Gold Dirt lode, Central City, Colorado. The original location was made and recorded in 1864, since which time there appears to have been numerous transfers of the property, and it is alleged by applicants that the possessory title by virtue of said location is in them. claim shall have been filed with the Register and the Receiver of the proper land of fice at the expiration of the sixty days of publication, it shall be assumed that the applicant is entitled to a patent, upon the payment to the proper officer of five dollars per acre, and that no adverse claim exists." You state that the right of the claimants asserted by the relocation has never to the knowledge of your office been questioned. All antecedent claims may therefore be regarded as having been abandoned, and all rights which may previously have existed as waived. This is in accord with The abstract of title in the case fails to the views expressed in my decision of Auverify this allegation. Applicants, how-gust 7, 1882, in the case of the Grampian ever, made a relocation, dated December 22, 1880, covering the same ground, and using the same name under which the mine was originally located. Silver Mining Company, (Copp's L. O. for September, 1882, p. 113). In that case it was held, in effect, that the failure to file or assert an adverse claim SEARL ET AL. VS. FINN. Lode in Placer-Proof required where an appli cant for a lode claim seeks to embrace a portion of the surface ground already patented or applied for with a placer claim. COMMISSIONER MCFARLAND to Reg. and Rec., Leadville, Colorado, June 25, 1883. (H. G. P.) This office has examined the appeals of George Berry and A. D. Searl, owners respectively of the Olathe and Searl placer claims, from your action of May 20, 1882, denying motions to dismiss application of Nicholas Finn for a patent for the Mandelle Lode. It appears that April 15, 1882, Finn applied for a patent for 300 feet in width by 1,500 feet in length on the Mandelle Lode, situate partly within said placer claims. Motions to dismiss the application were filed by said Berry and Searl, and denied by you May 20th. The dismissal was asked for on the ground that the land claimed by Finn was to the extent of the greater portion thereof included in said Olathe and Searl placer claims, and therefore the application ought not to be allowed, and that there is no such lode as claimed by Finn, and other grounds being in the nature of protest. You held in denying the motions that the records show that there existed prior to the date of the application of either the Olathe or Searl placers, the claim known as the Mandelle Lode, and that, therefore, | stricted to the lode and 25 feet of surface It appears from a copy of certificate of location filed, that the Mandelle Lode was located March 24, 1879, by John McKenzie, A. A. Swan, and Thomas Guest. The application for the Searl placer was fled July 5th, and that of the Olathe July 7th. 1879. Finn claims under locations made by himself May 10th and June 11th, 1881, and also claims through various conveyances to be possessed of the claim originally located by McKenzie, Swan and Guest, and that they are one and the same lode or claim. In the case of Becker et al. vs. Sears. the Hon. Secretary of the Interior held that Section 2333, U. S. R. S., carves out from a patent to a placer claim all known lodes found therein at date of application, together with 25 feet of surface ground on both sides as incident thereto. There is no sufficient evidence before me, however, showing that the lode in question was really known to exist at date of the placer applications. Furthermore, it does not appear that the lode claimant filed any adverse claim against either of said placer applicacations, and having failed to do so within the statutory period, he must now, under the decision of the Honorable Secretary in the case of the Shonbar Lode (Corr's L. O., Vol. 10, p. 18), if entitled at all, be restricted to his lode claim, and only £5 fect of surface ground on each side. But before application for the lode claim can be received, applicant must affirmatively and satisfactorily show his acquaint a For reasons above stated, Mr. Finn's applications, upon his present showing, must be, and the same is hereby rejected. Your decision is reversed. HOMESTEADS. CHARLES STEVENS. refused because homestead settler failed, for I have considered the appeal of Charles Stevens, from your decision of May 11. 1882. rejecting his application of April 5, 1882, to make homestead entry on the S. W. 1-4 of the N. E. 1-4 of Sec. 10, Tp. 12, R. 7 E., Sacramento. California, because of the homestead entry of Charles Jordan thereon. CRONK US. PAGE. Intimate and Confidential Relations.-The mcro COMM'R MCFARLAND to Register and Receiver, I have considered the case, Charles S. this cflice February 24th last, the comA hearing in said case was ordered by plaint charging that said entry is illegal on account of intimate and confidential relations existing between said Page and Hiram Barber, Jr., Receiver, and that the latter acted in collusion with the former Notice of con Trial in procuring said entry. It appears from the testimony submitted that Mr. Page is the nephew of Hiram Barber, Jr., Receiver. That he went to Mitchell. Dakota, about the first week in April, 1882, it seems at the instance of his mother, Cynthia B. Page, who des:red him to locate in that country. Stevens' application shows that he settled on the tract more than twenty years since, and has a house and out-buildings, and about two acres under cultivation, and One Thos. J. Ball, of Mitchell, had a that he did not previously assert claim to relinquishment of Mr. Spencer's entry it, because more than ten years since the of said tract, and Mr. Page, learning of inhabitants of Gold Hill, intending to lo- this fact, purchased said relinquishment cate a town-site on said section, the exthrough Messis. Winsor and Metcalf, the terior bounds of which would include his improvements, caused a survey for such agents of Mr. Bail, paying therefor the sum of six hundred and fifty dollars. town-site to be made, and that he had al-This trade, it appears, was concluded April ways supposed, until recently, that an ap 18, 1882, and on the same day Mr. Page plication for patent for said proposed made his entry, Mr. Winsor transacting town-site had been made. He now learns that no such application has been made, and states that said town of Gold Hill town-site laws. Jordan filed declaratory statement for the tract (with others) February 1, 1877, and March 3, 1880, made homestead entry the Lusiness for him. He has resided on said land since May 12, 1882, and has im- Also a Mr. Page is a comparative stranger to his uncle, Hiram Barber, Jr., was educated in Europe, and knows Lut little of his uncle from infancy up, having seen him last prior to his arrival in Mitchell, in the fall of 1879. ance with, and the actual existence of the lode and mine, and its true location within the placer, and that its existence was known prior to date of the placer applications, and he must set forth such facts as clearly show how the existence of such lode at that time became known, and therefor. statement under cath of more conclusions A mere occupant of a tract of public or opinions will not be suflicient to estab- land has no right thereto. It is only when lish the existence of the lode. Applicant's he asserts claim under some law for its affidavit must be full, clear and specific disposition, that a right can be recognized. Mr. Page is not a member of Mr. Barupon the points indicated. He must also The reason assigned by Stevens for his her's family, neither is he an employee in Frove his possessory right and value of failure to assert claim, is without any legal your office, nor does the evidence disclose work as in other applications, and in ad force. He was not a claimant of record any very intimate and confidential reladition to the other proofs required by law until more than five years from the date tions between them. The mere fact of and official regulations in mining applica of Jordan's pre-emption filing, and more consanguinity is not of itself sufficient to tions, the allegations of applicant above than two years from the date of his home-invalidate the entry, and as he has shown mentioned must be satisfactorily and fully stead entry. At each of these dates the good faith in all particulars with respect corroborated by at least two disinterested land was vacant public land, subject to to his homestead entry, I am of the opin and credible witnesses familiar. with the whosoever might apply for it. Although ion that this case does not come within facts. Such a showing the applicant has there are equities in favor of Stevens, his failed to make. laches in failing to assert a claim until so long a time after Jordan's claim, must require recognition of the latter's legal, as well as equitable rights, to which the claim of Stevens must yield. You are instructed, however, that should applicant make such showing and present such application under oath for the lode, showing its actual location and extent by plat and field notes, such application re I affirm your decision. the rule laid down in the case of the State of Nebraska, vs. Dorrington (Copp's L. O. vol. 3, 122), and circular instructions issued thereunder, and that in making said entry, Page only exercised a right guaranteed him by law. The contest is therefore dismissed. |