Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1881-08-06
TUE CASE.
Second Decision Of the Local Land
Officers.

VttlttES-
Below is the full decision rendered in
the Nickals ranch case. 1t will be seen
that the local land authorities hold that
the homesteaders failed to comply with the
law in the matter of actual residence. The
case will no doubt be further appealed to
the Commissioner Of the General Land
Office at Washington:
UNITED STATES LAND OFFICE,
EUREKA New ..August 4, 1881.
VIM. w. Nickals, contestant, vs.. Thomp-
son J. Bird, claimant.
This case is one involving the question
Of abandonment by Thompson J Bird of
bis homestead claim npon the southwest
! quarter of section II, township 90, north
| OF range 50 East M. D. M.
Homestead entry No. 159 was made by
Bird, the claimant, March 30, 1880, and
on the 2lst day of April, 1881, a protest
thereto was filed in this Office by William
W. Nickals, the contestant.
Due notice having been given, q hearing
was held at this Office on the 1lth day Of
July, 1881, when the parties in interest,
together wit their attorneys, appeared,
and the testimony hereto attached was
taken.
The evidence shows that after making
said homestead entry No. 159 in March,
1880. Bird remained away from the land
until the latter part of September of the
same year; and was then upon the land
but a few days, employed in erecting a
small house, which at that time he did not
complete. He then left the place, and did
not again return until the 10th OF March,
1881, and then only to remain over night;
and on the 9Th of May, 1881. be made a
similar visit to the land. On the 9th of
June Bird again returned to the land, and
claims that he has lived there since that
time.
From Birds own testimony it is shown
that more than a year had elapsed since
date of entry before his house was COM
pleted, and that he did not establish his
residence upon the lane until June S, 1881,
nearly fifteen months after his entry was
made.
Birds going upon the land as he did and
remaining over night occasionally. did not
constitute residence, as contemplated by
the Homestead law. (Copp's Land Owner,
vol. 5, page 1867.
Bird further states as a reason for not
taking up his residence OH the land at an
earlier date that the land was in litigation.
He commenced the erection Of a dwell
ing house upon the land while suit was
pending, and could as well have established
his residence thereon at the same time, or
he could have built his house and COM
menced to reside upon the land at an ear
lier date. The pending Of contest was not
sufficient under the law to prevent him
from going upon the land to reside.
From the time his homestead applica-
ton was filed in the Lsnd Office and his
entry allowed until the expiration of six
months thereafter, Bird had a preferred
right according to law to take MP his resi-
dence upon the land and to improve the
same.
That Bird has in GOOD faith complied
with the law in this matter is not shown
On the contrary, it appears 10 be an at
tempt to obtain title to public lands with
out a compliance with the requirements of
the law.
Therefore, after carefully considering
the evidence submitted in this case, we
come to the following conclusion:
That, as Bird failed to establish his res
idenee upon the northwest quarter Of Sec.
II, township 90. north of Range 50 East,
the tract covered by his homestead entry.
No. 159. within the period of six months
succeeding the date OF entry as prescribed
by law. said homestead entry No. 159
should be cancelled.
Respectfully submitted.
F. II. HINcKLEY. Register.
HARVEY CARPENTER. Receiver.
To Hon. Commissioner of the General
Land Office.
The decision in the case Of William W.
Nickals vs.. Peter VIM is the same in sub
stance as the above.