Wood River times. [volume] (Hailey, Idaho) 1882-1915, 1884-02-08
THE DECISION IN THE WILLIAMS
CASE,

IL Is Against Him on Every POlnt-HOw
the Contestant Swore Positively to
Conflicting Facts - Testimony that
Would Not BE Admitted Anywhere.
The decision rendered in the Hail
ey Land Office, yesterday, in the con-
test instituted by p. R. Williams
against John Haley, scores another
victory for the people of Haley.
Mr.. Williams contested the desert
land entry OF Mr.. Haley, claiming
under the presumption law. The
case was bitterly fought, and the test
imony on each side was voluminous.
A synopsis of that testimony showed
conclusively the following facts:
l. That Mr.. Hailey's entry was
upon desert lands;
:. That it was made in good
faith;
3. That the desert land law has
since been complied with, in every
respect, by Mr.. Haley; and that he
has brought water, at great expense,
on to every legal subdivision of said
tract, and thus etl'ectually reclaimed
it;
4. That Mr.. Hailey's entry was
made IN 1880;
s. That Mr.. Wiliams's entry was
made in April, 1881;
6. That Mr.. Williams swore pos
itively that he first settled on the land
claimed in January, 1881, while the
affidavit upon which the contest is
based, and which was also sworn to
by Mr.. Williams, alleges his first set
tlement to have been made only in
April, 1881;
7. That, by Mr.. Wiliams's own
testimony, his residence, which should
have been on his presumption, was
erected from a quarter to hall mile
from the land which he now claims;
s. That the said cabin was after
ward moved on to the land claimed by
Mr.. Haley since 1880;
9. That the said cabin, together
with others, was erected to rent to
Cinnamon, and solely for speculative
purposes;
10. That Mr.. Williams failed to
comply with the law under which he
claimed by neglecting to cultivate
the SAID land;
II. That the principal interest of
Mr.. Williams in said lands seemed to
be the collecting of enormous rents
from the Cinnamon inhabiting the
cabins erected thereon;
II. That although he collected
large sums for the rent of these cab
ms during the past three years, he did
not expend one dollar in improving
SAID lands;
Is. That Mr.. Williams, in viola
ton of law, decided half-interest in
said lands, including the Chinese
cabins, to Mr.. Cramer;
IA. That the lack of "good faith"
on the part of Mr.. Williams is sbund-
antly proved by the facts cited in
paragraphs four to l3, both inclusive;
Is. That, as further evidence of
bad faith, Mr.. Williams permitted,
without any protest whatever, store
keepers and others to erect expensive
buildings upon a portion of the land
claimed by him;
16. That the land claimed by Mr.
Haley is composed of gravel bars,
boulders and river wash, with here
and there narrow stri ps of alluviaI
soil which produced bunch grass
some brush, and few trees;
II. That even the stri ps Of sllu.
vial soil referred to cannot produce
crops without irrigation;
IS. And, finally, that Mr.. VIII
iams's testimony is entirely unworthy
of credence because too many part
of it are Ito state the case mildly il
direct conflict with the facts. In sui
sanitation of this finding, Mr.. Will
iams's testimony tends to prove, first
ly, that he first settled Oh his pre-emp
, ton in January, 1881; secondly, tina
: he made the said first settlement onl
four months later, to- wit: in April, 1891
, thirdly, that he repeatedly testified
upon oath, that he never agreed t.
sell airy portion of his claim; fourth
[ ", that he did sell an interest to Mr.
Cramer, as evinced by deed, or Ger
titled copy of the same, with whic