The Harrison times. (Harrison, Boone Co., Ark) 1876-1938, 1882-12-02

papers filed as applications by SAID
Townsile. We therefore do not
consider that the said Town OF Eu-
reka has ever made legal or valid
application for any Of the lands EN-.
braeed in this contest, and we can
not conceive OF a valid selection
without legal application, Nor
does it appear that the said town of
Eureka Springs was ever legally
surveyed and plated into lots,
blocks, streets and alleys, by the
SAID Town authorities of Eureka
Springs.
From the testimony sub
mitted, the character and standing
OF the witnesses testifying and their
demean0r upon the witness stand,
we find that there were no Munici-
pal improvements whatever upon
the Cd Sc 10, 2On, rs Y, prior to the
18th May, 1880 the date of the appli,
cation by George j. Crump to enter
said land, but as Crump's application
80 eeted Yd he failed to APP
bm the ltcislon rejecting the
same, any rights he may have had
under SAID application are conelu-
del. .
Weare therefore of the opinion
that said tract is vacant public land
and subject to disposal under the
agricultural laws.
That upon tho NV OF &C same sec.
ton there were no municipal inns
provements prior 20 October 10th,
1879, the date of Cash Entry No.
407, by William Evans.
That upon tho sw sc, same sec
tloD, there were no municipal i'm.
|proyements prior 10 Sept. 10, 1879,
HE date OF Cash Entry No. 1893, by
William Evans.
That upon the 81 of sw, same sec.
ton, there were no municipal i'm.
provements prior to Oct. q, 1879,
the date of Cash Entry No. Alb, by
William Evans.
That upon the NV OF sw, Same
section, there were no municipal
improvements prior to the 9th OF
April, 1880, the date of the appIca-
ton of Edwin c. Chapman and T.
Grimes for said land Nor were
there any municipal improvements
thereon prior to the 18th of May,
1880, the date of the application of
George J. Crump for said land,
which said applications were reiec-
ted by this office, and as no appeal
was taken FROM the decision reiec-
ting the t@o, any rights they may
have had hereunder were conelu.
ded. Nor were there any muniei,
pal improvements prior to April q,
1881, the date of tho application Of
George W. Penn to enter the same
which application was rejected and
on appeal was decided adverse to
him by the Commissioner in his let
ter sc" April 18th, 1882. That
prior to the renewal of Peun's APP
plicatIon to enter said tract, March
goth, 1882, per cash Certificate No.
1899 survey appears to have been
made by one John E. Perrin laying
off the greater portion of the same
into lots, blocks, streets and alleys,
and some improvements had been
made around tho dairy Spring, STU
ated upon that forty, some of the
streets had been worked and build.
ings erected on some of the lots, but
as this was offered public land, and
there appearing no PRIOR valid, ad-
verse claim of Record, we know OF
no reason why said entry should
not be held as valid.
Tha. upon the sw sw, same sec
ton, we find no municipal improve.
ments prior to the End of January,
1880, the date of Cash Entry No
432 by Lewis NJ. Lloyd and Edwin
A. Chapman, Not any of the land:
in the y section 10 were embraced
in the application Of Mayor Ros
son, May 10th, 1880, above referred
to, showing that up To that time the
salq IOWn maze no claim Whatever
TO said lands.
That upon tho sw Sc and ne of Sc
Section s5, 20, rs, we find no mum
cipal improvements prior TO Janu
airy %, 1880, the date of Cash En-
try No. 446 by Peter Vanwinkle
for said land, and the same was not
included in the said application O.
Mayor Rosson, May 10Th, 1880
That upon the sw of sw Section
10 we find no municipal improve.
ments PRIOR to January 9th, 1880
the date of Cash Entry No. 453 by