the tower, and with but six rooms if de I modify your decision, and direct that sired. In its most costly form, the outlay a re-hearing be ordered. When report of is estimated at $3,000; without the tower the additional testimony is made, you will it has been built for $2,500; and if only re-examine the case in connection theresix rooms are included, the cost may be with. reduced to $1,700 or $2,000. Details are given of mantels, stairs, doors and casings, cornices, etc. The publishers have found it the most popular plan they have ever issued, and state that it has been adopted in more than five hundred instances within their knowledge. PRACTICE. RYAN VS. STADLER. THYEN VS. BRYANT. SECRETARY TELLER to Commissioner McFar- I concur with you, however, in the Notice by Publication.-An affidavit stating that [Aflirms Markers vs Canady, Vol. 9, p. 75.] JOHN DOTTA. I have considered the case of Philip Ryan vs. Henry Stadler, involving the latter's homestead entry made July 9, Payment-Register.-Payment for public lands 1880, upon the W. of the N. E. and the S. E. of the N. W. of Sec. 33, Tp. 32, R. 12 E., Menasha, Wisconsin, on appeal by Stadler from your decision of May 13, 1882, holding his entry for cancellation, and also refusing his application for a rehearing of the case. It appears that Ryan instituted this contest September 26, 1881, alleging Stadler's abandonment of the tract; notice is required by law to be made to the Receiver. until it has been duly paid to the proper officer authorized by law to receive it. There is no relief that can be extended by this oflice in the class of cases referred to. INSTRUCTIONS AS TO FEES FOR COPIES AND PLATS UNDER THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1883. COMMISSIONER MCFARLAND to Reg. and Rec., Falls St. Croix, Wis., May 14, 1883. (T.M.B.) In reply to your letter of the 1st inst., relating to fees, under the Act of March 3, 1883, I have to state that the fee for plats or diagrams, furnished by you, is one dollar for each plat or diagram, regardless of the amount of work necessary to prepare it. In reply to your second question, I have to inform you that there is no provision of law authorizing Registers and Receivers of other than consolidated land offices to charge any fees for transcripts of records, such as making copies of field notes, that is, descriptive lists, etc. As your office is not a consolidated office, you are not allowed to charge for any services rendered by you in making copies of descriptive lists. An amended copy of the fee bill of this office and circulars relating thereto will ACTING COMMISSIONER HARRISON to Wilson T.be forwarded to you. It is not the intent of the act of March thereof was given by publication, the con- reason. The motion for rehearing (supported by affidavits) shows that Stadler erected a house on the land in the spring of 1881, and broke and cultivated a small parcel thereof; that he has not at any time been absent from the tract for the period of six months, and only for the purpose of acquiring the means of livelihood, and of improving the land; and that he has no other home. He did not appear nor was he represented at the hearing, not having received any knowledge thereof until the day of hearing, when several miles distant from the local office, and when too late to make an appearance. No such entry appears to have been made. bondsmen can be held responsible. You are advised that Registers give bonds for the faithful discharge of their duties as Registers. Such duties do not comprehend the custody or receipt of public moneys. Payment for public lands is required by law to be made to the Receiver. He is the only officer authorized to receive such moneys. Registers are not so authorized, and parties entrusting their money to a Register do so at their own risk. The official bondsmen of Registers cannot be held liable for a breach of private trust by their principals. Money is not paid to the United States land. Where parties desire full copies of plats of surveys, the proper officer to apply to is to the Surveyor-General, or where there is no Surveyor-General, to the State officer having charge of the records of the Surveyor-General's office. MINES AND MINERALS. INSTRUCTIONS AS TO END LINES OF LODE CLAIMS. COMM'R MCFARLAND to U. S. Surveyor-General Atkinson, Santa Fe, New Mexico, May 11, 1883. (W. A. C.) The intent of Section 2322 U. S. Revised Statutes, concerning locators' rights of possession and enjoyment, is plainly that the parallel end lines shall cut the lode at its extremities as located, and are for the purpose of limiting and defining the right of a claimant to follow the lode upon its dip beyond the side lines by confining this right to such portions of the vein or ledge as lie between vertical planes drawn downward through the parallel end lines, so continued in their own direction that such planes will intersect such exterior parts of such vein or ledge. It will be seen by reference to the plats that the broken and parallel end lines of the claims of the Sterling Price Mining Company, upon the Sterling Price, South Virginia, and Johnny Bull Lodes, do not afford a substantial compliance with the law, for the following reasons, to wit: Suppose the extremities of the vein to be at the angles formed by the broken end lines, and that the dip is to the left. Although it is presumed that the claimant would be governed by the end lines, as established upon that side, yet legally there is nothing to compel him to do so, for the prolongations of either pair of parallel lines might be assumed at will to control. Lode Assume the line of the lode to be as shown in the above figure, the right to follow the dip being controlled by those lines which are cut by the lode; the claim will be continually enlarged to the right and diminished to the left until a point is reached where the lines intersect. The position of the vein remaining the same, that pair of end lines on the right of the lode would entitle the claimant on the dip to an excess B C along the lode, not embraced in the location; while the pair to the left would diminish the original location by a similar amount A D. Other complications concerning the rights of adjoining claimants would be certain to arise; and it is thought that surveys which are thus likely to defeat the obvious intent of the law should be amended. The plats and field notes are therefore returned. In connection with the foregoing your attention is called to Extract C of the Special Instructions to Deputy Mineral Surveyors issued by your office, and also to letter N, October 3d, 1881, page 304, Copp's Land Owner. As these surveys have been given no numbers, you will please supply the deficiencies and in addition furnish this office a complete list of surveys made under your direction, with their respective numbers as recently revised. CEPHAS W. CARPENTER. Void Location.-A mineral location made upon lands within the limits of an Indian reserva tion is void at its inception, and, although the Indian title is subsequently extinguished, tract, a qualified preëmptor who has failed SECRETARY TELLER to Comm'r McFarland, I have considered the case of Patrick and the proceedings for patent are regular in all respects, the entry must be cancelled. COMMISSIONER MCFARLAND to Reg. and Rec., Deadwood, Dakota, May 3, 1883. (C. A. B.) The evidence submitted in the matter of mineral entry No. 94, in the series of your office, made October 14, 1881, for the claim of Cephas W. Carpenter, upon the Rattle-H. McGurk, pre-emption claimant, vs. snake Jack Lode, situate in Lawrence James Waters, mineral claimant, involvcounty, Dakota, has been re-examined. ing lands in Stockton, California, land disNeither adverse claim or protest has trict, on appeal from your decision of cation for patent. been filed against Mr. Carpenter's appli- February 21, 1882. The record discloses that said claim was located July 15, 1876, and that the claim- submitted, This claim was embraced in the reserva It appears that McGurk filed declaratory statement March 17, 1876, for lot 4, of Sec. 4, and lots 1, 2, and 3 of Sec. 5, Tp. 3, R. 12, alleging settlement March 13, 1876. Waters filed an affidavit May 25, 1876, alleging that the S. of lot 4 was mineral in character; and on September 12, 1878, McGurk applied to enter the tracts. A hearing was held in October, tion set apart to the Sioux Indians by 1878, to determine their character. The treaty, April 29, 1868 (15 Stats., 635). In local officers found that lots 1, 2, and 3 said treaty it was stipulated that no persons but that McGurk had not complied with were agricultural; that lot 4 was mineral; except those therein designated, and except such officers, agents and employes of the the requirements of the pre-emption law Government as may be authorized to enin respect to residence. ter upon Indian reservations in discharge McGurk appealed therefrom, because of official duties, should ever be permitted they found the whole of lot 4 to be mineto pass over, settle upon, or reside in the ral, while Waters alleged that the S. of territory described in the second article of the lot only was of that character, and besaid treaty. Said Indian reservation was cause also their decision did not clearly subsisting at the date of the location of indicate whether or not he was entitled to the Rattlesnake Jack lode claim, and con-enter lots 1, 2 and 3; and Waters apof the ratification of the agreement be- and 3 were agricultural. tinued until February 28, 1877, the date pealed because they decided that lots 1, 2 Your decision tween the United States and the Sioux, holds that that of the local officers suffiby which the Black Hills country was re- ciently indicates that McGurk was not linquished to the United States. entitled to enter any of the land, and was correct in that respect; that these officers properly admitted testimony respecting the mineral character of the whole of lot 4, notwithstanding Waters charges related only to the S. of the lot; that, under the testimony, this tract was wholly mineral; that lots 1, 2 and 3 were agricultural, but that McGurk was not entitled to enter them, for the reason assigned by the local officers. The occupancy and location of the Rattlesnake Jack mining claim prior to the relinquishment of the Indian title, was in open violation of solemn treaty stipulations, and without even a shadow of right. (See Honorable Secretary's decision,Townsite of Deadwood vs. Mineral Claimants, Copp's L. O., Jan., 1882). The claim in question is based upon a location made while the land was embraced within the Sioux reservation. I am compelled, under the decision cited, to hold that it was not a valid location. The location being illegal and void, the for cancellation. MCGURK VS. WATERS. entry thereof can be allowed. All of the land embraced in McGurk's filing having been returned as mineral, it was incumbent upon him to show its nonmineral character before he could enter it as agricultural land, and the fact that Waters alleged a portion of it to be mineral did not change his obligation in this respect. The burden was upon him equally as if Waters had made no charge. The character of all the lands was therefore properly before the local officers and especially so as to the S. of lot 4. I have examined the testimony and concur with you in the opinion that lots 1, 2 and 3 are agricultural land and subject to preëmption only but that McGurk, had not at the date of hearing, sufficiently complied with the law in respect to residence, to entitle him to entry. I am also of the opinion that the S. of lot 4 only, as alleged by Waters, is mineral land, and that the N. of that lot is agricultural. As Preemptor's Residence.In the absence of an McGurk appears to have failed to comply adverse claim to the non-mineral portion of a with the law in the matter of residence only, and has valuable improvements, and there is no adverse claimant, I think he should be allowed to enter all of the tracts embraced in his filing, except the S. of lot 4, on showing compliance with the law since the date of hearing, within sixty days from notice hereof, and your decision is modified accordingly. If McGurk shows such compliance and applies to enter the tract, you will cause said S. to be segregated from the N. of said lot 4. only from the date of his alleged settle- ant, vs. Stephen E. Dobbs, mineral entry It should be observed, however, that the mineral character of a township is determined from the character of the greater portion of the same. The records of your office show that this township contains a very small proportion of arable land, a fair proportion of land fit for grazing purposes, "and much that is valuable only for its mineral; that "the main or mother vein of WOODRUFF Vs. MCGINNESS. quartz passes through this township, enMineral Land. The mineral character of a tering at section 5 and running S. 30 E., township is determined from the character of cropping heavily at Whisky Hill in section the greater portion thereof. Consideration 16 and at Quartz Mountain in section 22, of the proof adduced at the hearing in this and leaving the township in section 35." SECRETARY TELLER to Commissioner Mc Far-***There is no minute description of land, May 12, 1883. the land along the sectional line between I have considered the case of Thomas 34 and 35, but its general character, as inP. Woodruff vs. John McGinness, involv- dicated by the field notes, appears to be ing the S. W. of Sec. 35, Tp. 1 N., R. extremely mountainous; while the land 14 E., M. D. M., Stockton district, Cali-along the south boundary of section 35 fornia, on appeal by Woodruff from your (Mount Diablo base line) is described as predecessor's adverse decision of January soil very poor." 12, 1881. * * * case. The motion is based upon two grounds, viz.: First. That the petition shows upon its face that the protestant, Montague, has no lawful right to the land covered by the defendant's mineral entry. Secondly. That there is no specific ground of complaint or assignment of errors. I do not think the motion upon the last ground can prevail. No assignment of errors is necessary on common law certiorari (Hillard on New Trials, 688, and cases there cited). “A petition for certiorari should state facts and not the opinions or conclusions of the petitioner (Ib., 696). I think the "grounds" mentioned in the rule refer to the proceedings which are to be fully set forth in the application, and not to assignments of error. Certiorari is not, however, a writ of right; but whether it shall issue lies in the judicial discretion of the tribunal to which the petition is addressed, "and the writ will not be granted if substantial justice has been done, though the record may show the proceedings to have been defective and informal" (Ib., 689). Rule 84 seems to have been framed upon the well-established practice in such cases. It is as follows, viz. : Such record showing raises the pre- "Applications to the Secretary under The Register and Receiver recommended sumption that the premises in question the preceding rule shall be made in writthat both filings be cancelled; Woodruff's are mineral in character; which presump-ing, under oath, and shall fully and because he had only slept on the land twice, tion must be overcome by aflirmative specifically set forth the grounds upon and McGinness' because all his improve-proof. which the application is made." ments were upon the N. W. of the S. McGinness has not even attempted to W. of said section, which forty-acre prove the land to be non-mineral or agritract said officers held to be mineral in cultural in character, and the evidence character. You found, however, that fails to show conclusively that the premwhile the non-mineral character of the E. ises are not "lands valuable for minerals," of the S. W. and the S. W. of the i. e., lands which it would pay to mine by S. W. of said section was sufficiently the usual methods of mining, as the words established by the testimony. The char- cited are used in section 2318 of the Reacter of the said N. W. of S. W. of vised statutes; yet as the full time in Sec. 35 has not been satisfactorily shown, which he might have entered the land had and I cannot arrive at a correct conclu- not expired at the date of the hearing, and sion as to the true character of the same as he will be required to make such full without further evidence." The evidence and conclusive showing prior to entry, I shows that "Sullivan's Creek" runs in a concur in the opinion that his declaratory southwesterly course through the N. W. statement should not be cancelled, but be of the S. W. in question; that "the allowed to remain intact upon the records ground in the creek "has been mined for until such time as he should prove up and many years, a portion thereof being now enter the land. claimed and worked as a mining claim; that McGinness' house is upon said fortyacre tract, where he had resided for several years and mined there from time to time "for the last ten years," and as late as within a fortnight of the hearing. On the other hand James Smith, the first witness sworn in behalf of Woodruff, testified that said forty-acre tract was more valuable for agricultural and grazing purposes than for mining, while the claimant himself and his other witness, A. B. Preston, testified contrariwise. 66 It is true that the testimony touching the character of said tract is very meagre, Woodruff having offered but little relating thereto, and having filed a relinquishment of the tract in resting his case, while McGinness refused to offer any testimony except his own, which related solely to his personal qualifications as a preemption claimant and to his residence on the tract. That he is such claimant, and that he resided continuously upon the land, not Concerning the question of Woodruff's right to enter the premises, I find from the evidence, that he is not a bona fide settler, he having wholly failed to comply with legal requirements in point of inhabitance and improvement. I therefor concur in your opinion that his filing should be canceled. Your decision is accordingly affirmed. MONTAGUE VS. DOBBS. The facts in this petition which constitute "the grounds upon which the application is made," are, I think, set out sufliciently full and specific, and the question presented is whether they disclose a . proper case for granting an order directing the proceedings to be certified to this Department. The petition discloses in substance the following facts, viz. : In January, 1870, James W. Bell made homestead entry for the N. W. 4 of the S. W. of said section 14. In August, 1875, Minerva J. Howard made homestead entry for the S. W. of the S. W. aforesaid. Bell having died, his heirs, May 25, 1881, executed a relinquishment of his said enRules of Practice Nos. 83 and 84-Certiorari.- try to the United States, and by an inWhat is meant by the "grounds upon strument of even date attempted to sell which certiorari may be allowed under the to William C. Kean all their interest, and above rules. to authorize him to obtain title under the Hearing-Cash Agricultural Entry.-ConsideraMay 26, 1881, tion of the request for a hearing while the act of June 15, 1880. land was covered by an agricultural entry. the petitioner went upon said tract for Kaolin-Placer Claim -A vein or lode of fire the purpose of locating a mining claim, clay or kaolin as herein, though with well and May 27th duly posted notice of such defined boundaries, is not a vein or lode with- location on said claim, and duly made in the mineral statutes, but must be located and published a proper notice that he SECRETARY TELLER to Commissioner McFaras a placer claim. "had located 1,495 linear feet on the land, May 10, 1883. Allen Spring Lode, vein or deposit of fireIn the case of L. E. Montague, protest- clay or kaolin." Attached to said notice mineral, and because the entry was void the agricultural entries were cancelled, It is claimed by the defendant that all the material facts have not been set forth in the petition, but I think those set forth are sufficient to enable me to dispose of the question whether the order prayed for should be made. was an affidavit sustaining the averments It appears from the facts disclosed that the defendant made application for patent in proper form, gave the requisite notice by posting and publication, and made due proof thereof; and that during the period of publication, no adverse claim was filed by Montague. It seems to be conceded that the lands were returned as agricultural by the Surveyor-General, and were therefore prima facie of that character. It will be observed that when his mineral location was rejected on account of Kean's cash entry, he took no appeal, nor did he file any adverse claim during the publication of the notice of defendant's location. The petitioner further claims that the Commissioner erred in holding that the lands were valuable only as containing placer deposits, and not veins or lodes. I do not think the deposit which both parties allege exists in the lands in controversy is of the character described as existing in "veins or lodes of quartz or other rock in place "in section 2320, Revised Statutes. Upon an examination of the authorities in the federal and state courts referred to by counsel and in your decision, I think it was correctly held by you that fire-clay or kaolin in the manner in which it exists as a deposit is properly the subject of a placer location, and not of a vein or lode, (North Noonday vs. Orient, 6 Sawyer, 308; Stevens es. Williams, 1 McCrary 486; Moxon vs. Wilkinson, 2 Montana, 424; The Eureka case, 4 Sawyer, 310; Jupiter vs. Bodie, 7 Sawyer 97). [For the above decisions in full or by abstract, see Copp's U. S. Mineral Lands, 2d edition-ED.] I am of the opinion that substantial justice has been done, and that the order prayed for in the petition should be denied, and the motion to dismiss the ap plication be granted. Both parties to this contest, however, have alleged and proved that the lands are in fact mineral, and are more valuable for mineral than for agricultural purposes; and both have made claims to the land or parts of it as mineral, and sought to ob- Minor--Relief. The minor's entry in this case neys for petitioner and D. P. Montague The protestant can not, therefore, now thereon. He had, however, asserted the If the lands were in truth mineral, I think the fact that they had been previously borne on the official records as agricultural lands" was immaterial (Scogin vs. Culver, 7 Copp's L. O. 23). After such mineral locations were made HOMESTEADS. is canceled, but he is allowed to make another entry of the land with credit for settlement from the date he became 21 years of age. COMM'R MCFARLAND to Reg. and Rec., Gainesville, Fla., January 19, 1883. (H. F. S.) It appears that the homestead party was not of the age of twenty-one years at the date of making his homestead entry, to wit: July 7th, 1875; that he was under the impression that he was entitled to make the entry as the head of a family, he alleging that at that time, and up to the present time, he has supported his mother and two younger children, and did not find out that his entry was illegal until he applied to make final proof in December, 1881. Mr. Bostwick further shows that he has strictly complied with the requirements of the homestead law as to residence upon and cultivation of his entry from the date thereof, never having been absent therefrom ten days at any one time, and that he became of age (twenty one years) on the 19th day of February, April 10, 1882, holding his entry for can1877. cellation. This contest was initiated March 24, 1881, *** about eight months from the date of entry * ** upon allegations that Weade failed to reside upon the land as required by law, and had abandoned the tract. Mr. Bostwick now desires relief, so as to be enabled to secure title to the land upon which his improvements and house are situated; but as his entry is illegal from its inception it will necessarily have to be canceled; therefore, said entry No. 1729 is hereby canceled, and in view of The testimony shows that in November the good faith shown by Bostwick in the following his entry, Weade purchased lumcase, you will allow him to re-enter the ber for his house, which was transported land, with credit of money paid on the by a railroad to the station nearest to the canceled entry, after which, as he is en- land in December, and that he employed a titled to credit for residence upon the carpenter to build and complete the house land, under act of May 14, 1880, you will prior to January 1, 1881, that he might then inform him that he may make final proof occupy it. The house was framed, but by upon the new entry from the date he be- reason of cold weather and deep snow it came twenty-one years of age to the pres- became practically impossible to do any ent time, which will cover the period of out-door work for many weeks thereafter, five years required by law. * *it being the most severe winter in that vicinity for many years. As soon as the weather reasonably permitted, the house was completed, and Weade moved into it April 28th, and with his family has since continuously occupied it. He dug a prior to the contest. well, and plowed ground for a garden, INSTRUCTIONS. Deceased Homesteader-Alien Heirs- Act of June COMM'R MCFARLAND to Reg, and Rec. Taylor's in Canada." * 66 enter the same as soon as the abandoned entry of one Hussey became cancelled (Aug. 27, 1881), but was prevented from so doing by reason of the extreme illness of his wife, which resulted in her death Sept. 17, 1881. Upon the above showing, this office directed you to allow Gilmore to make an entry for the same land under Act of May, 14, 1880, and their legal and equitable rights to be adjusted thereafter (vide office letter Jan. 18, 1882). At the solicitation of the parties, a hearing was held Sept. 27 and 28, 1882, Gilmore alleging that he resided upon, and had valuable improvements on the land in controversy at the date of Barbee's entry; Barbee denying the allegation, thus producing an issue. The evidence shows that Gilmore commenced to build a house on said land in May or June, 1881, which was completed the following August; into which he moved one Lucy Honeycut, (not a member of his family,) with instructions to look after the place and prepare the house for his wife on her return from Tennessee. It further ap pears that Gilmore's daughter lived in said house with said Lucy Honeycut about three weeks, during which time Gilmore supplied them both with necessaries, In the meantime Gilmore himself resided at the parsonage of the Colored Baptist Church, some two miles distant, over which he seems to have been the leading spirit. In the early part of September, 1881, his wife returned from Tennessee, and was taken to the parsonage, where she died on the 17th of the same month. The Revised Statutes require a homestead entryman to commence residence upon his land within six months from the "In case of a man dying, and at the date of entry. This Weade did not do time holding a homestead, can an alien his six months expiring January 14, 1881 heir or heirs enter his homestead land un--and, under a strict enforcement of that der the act of June 15, 1880 ? An entry-law, his entry became forfeited. But the man has died here, and his relations reside act of March 3, 1881, amends the former law by adding thereto" the proviso, that Before any heirs can legally be per- where climatic reasons prevent residence mitted to purchase the land embraced in within six months, the Commissioner of the entry of a deceased homestead party, the General Land Office may allow the It is shown conclusively that up to Sepit must be shown that the entry man left settler twelve months for that purpose. tember 27, 1882, Gilmore had failed to no widow. This fact being established, There appears no reason to doubt the establish a residence in person on the the rights of infant children, under sec-good faith of Weade, or of his purpose land, that he labored on the land through tion 2292 R. S., must next be protected. to retain and not abandon the tract; the day, but continued his residence at If it be shown that neither widow nor in-and his residence commenced within about the aforesaid parsonage, which had been fant children survive the entryman, then eight months from the date of his entry, his home for several years. Section the rights of other heirs may be consid-under the facts, should be allowed as a 2291 R. S. requires personal residence ered, and they may be permitted to acquire compliance with the requirements of the title in any of the methods prescribed by law. In the event that they elect to purchase the land, as provided by 2d section of act of June 15, 1880, it is immaterial whether they be citizens or aliens. There is nothing in the statutes prohibiting aliens from purchasing lands subject to private entry, and the effect of the 2d section of act of June 15, 1880, is to render lands affected by it subject to private entry by the persons entitled to the benefit of its provisions. MCLEOUD VS. WEADE. Failure in Residence. Notwithstanding the homestead party failed to make personal residence within the required six months, his entry is allowed to stand in view of his good faith and the law of March 3, 1881. SECRETARY TELLER to Commissioner Mc Farland, April 30, 1883. law. I reverse your decision, and allow the entry of Weade to stand. upon the land; residence by proxy is not sufficient to satisfy its terms, and as Gilmore had sufficient time to establish his residence after his wife's death, upon the land, I am of the opinion that he has BARBEE VS GILMORE. forfeited his rights under the Act of May, Residence by Proxy.-Residence on a homestead 14. 1880. Therefore in view of the premmust be in person and cannot be by proxy,ises I have decided to hold Gilmore's eneven by a member of the entryman's family. try No. 12,581 for cancellation, subject to Two Entries. Two entries of the same tract appeal within sixty days from notice. may be allowed subject to an adjustment of the legal and equitable rights of the two par ties. ACTING COMMISSIONER HARRISON to Reg. and I have carefully considered the contest name. F. M. HEATON. Tiro Homestead Entries.-A widow as the legal representative of her deceased husband may continue to cultivate his homestead, and at the same time make an entry in her own CoMMISSIONER MCFARLAND to F. M. Heaton, Huron, Dakota, May 24, 1883. (E. A. D.) The widow of a "homesteader" who The records show that Barbee entered died before completing his title to the land, said land as a homestead Sept. 24, 1881, but who up to the date of his death comI have considered the case of Milo H. and executed the preliminary affidavit be- plied fully with the homestead law, would McLeoud vs. Calvin A. Weade, involving fore the Register. Oct. 18, 1881, said not, while continuing the cultivation of the latter's homestead entry made July Gilmore filed an affidavit, duly corrobo- said homestead claim as the representative 14, 1880, upon lots 1, 2 and 3, of Sec. 2, rated, setting forth that he had improve- of her deceased husband, be debarred from Tp. 124, R. 48, Benson, Minnesota, on ap-ments on said land, and was residing exercising her own rights under the homepeal by Weade from your decision of thereon with his family and intended to stead acts (see Copp's Land Laws, 1882, |