, 1882-07-21
PUGET SOUND ARGUS.
General Land Office Decisions,
EDWARDS vs., SEXSON,


land entered, in all respects showing
that his claim is made in good faith.
ne has fulfilled the requirements of the
statute.
In every case an actual, personal, contln-
uOuS residence Is not necessary.
The homestead act OF 1852 should he
literally construed
DEPARTMENT OF THE INFERIOR,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
WASHINGTON, u, c., June %, 1882.
The Commissioner
Of the Generol Land Obics!
Sir: / have considered the case of
Thomas j. Edwards vs.. Andrew j.
Sexson, involving homestead entry
No. 562l, covering the s. W. ! of Sec.
Is, TIP. 3 n, II. 23 W., Nebraska, on
appeal by contestant from your de-
clsion OF July 13, 1880, sustaining
the decision Of the Register and Re
ceiver and dismissing the contest,
This homestead entry was made DC
tober IA. 1878, Affidavit of contest
alleging abandonment and defective
cultivation was, made january Il,
1880, and trial was held February 20
1880. f #. r a.
A question has bean raised as to
the admission of the oral cross exam
ination of contestants witnesses in.
the depositions taken before q. H.
Bane notary public, upon written in
terrogatories ON the part Df the con
testant. For such irregularity tho
testimony should have been stricken
out upon the motion made for that
purpose, and in considering this case
the testimony 80 taken proves salts
factorily the following facts, viz;
That the defendant, Sexson, was Il
single man, twenty nine years of age,
that he made settlement on the land
early in April, 1879, with the inten-
ton OF remaining there; that he had
a team, wagon, breaking-plo cook
ing utensils, and some other articles
of personal property; that he en-
ployed help and built u house twelve
feet square, partly a dugout and part
ly sod, with roof of willow and earth,
and an opening for a door and win
dow One witness who had been ac-
quainted with the land six years, and
knew the house, testihes that it was
like most of the first dwellings built
in that country After building the
house Sexson commenced breaking
upon the lines of his land for the
purpose of setting trees OF hedge,
and a piece for crops the ensuing
year. He occupied the house short
time, eating and sleeping there.
About the lst of June, 1879, on ac-
count of the death of a brother, he
went to the eastern part Of the state
to attend to some of his brothers.
business and some Of his own that
was.left with his brother. He remain
ed away until September. During
his absence he spent part of his time
in cidtiyating crops left by his broth
er, part in attending to his own af
fairs and part of the time working
out for wages.
He arrived at his homestead again
September 16, 1879. He occupied
the house a short time, put a door in
il and otherwise made it more COM
Portable for the winter. The ground
was too dry for further improving
it, and being out of money and hay
ing no work he again returned to
the eastern part of the state. He
left tho house in good condition,
with a bed, table, cooking utensils,
crockery, clothing and some other
articles of personal property init 1t
was proved that a month before the
trial the house was there and the per-
sonal property in it. When Sexson
returned, February 10th, short time
before the trial, he found the house
destroyed and all the woodwork and
personal property taken away, He
had no other home and returned with
the intention of remaining.
The claimant. Sexson. seems to have
acted in good faith and with the in
tention of appropriating the land to
his own use ana making home of
it.
The facts in the case are quito sim
liar to those in the case Of Waldo VS..
SchlesS, (Copp's Pubic Land Laws,
'p 23). 1t was held i'll that case that
where a person, although not at all
times on the land, has no other recog-
nized homo, and claims and improves
the land enteretL n al respects
showing that his claim IL Imie in
good faith; Ss % & that lie has full
1lled the req eqdiremcnts Of thh statute
And that in every possible case III
actual pce5onal continuous residence
is not necessary. And to same effect
spe Baker vs.. Hess, W. p. 4B. '1.t. D..
| am of opinion that neither the
charge OF defective settlement and
cultivation OF that Of abandonment
has been sustained
Your decision is therefore affirm
ed and the contest dismissed
The papers submitted with your
l,tt,,. larn,r,i.b h rn+t,rpAl