Wood River times. [volume] (Hailey, Idaho) 1882-1915, 1884-02-07

ment that none of the lands III dispute
would grow agricultural crops (proht-
able agricultural crops) one year with
another without the aid of artificial r.
rigation.
There is, however, some testimony
showing, or tending to prove, that wild
grass has been cut upon said lands for
hay; but such witnesses, in our opin-
ion. have not shown themselves to be
sufficiently familiar with the lines OF
the lands in question, to know that
such grass was cut on the land in dis
pute and not on lands adjacent, where
there were doubtless some small patch
es of wild grass growing. Several
witnesses testified that the same kind
of grasses grow high up on the mount
ain sides, and on all classes Of bench
lands, as well as bottom lands.
The contestant Williams, in his first
direct examination, test6es that he
first made settlement on his claim in
Jan. 1881. That his first act Of set
tlement was the erection of cabin
thereon; and, upon cross examination
upon this subject, swears that said
cabin was erected, from ! to a
mile from the land in dispute, and
other testimony in the case shows
that SAID cabin was erected north
of the north line of any portion of the
land embraced within his present
claim, as also the same line of testi-
mony shows that said cabin was built
by Sim. Anderson, Albert Worthing
ton and Williams in co-partnership,
and was by them jointly occupied
while engaged in cutting poles for
sale.
The affidavit of Contestant Will
liams, upon which this contest was
based, alleges settlement April LIST
1881, thus showing discrepancy i.
his pretended dates Of settlement
The proof also shows that Williams
by his own testimony. moved sal,
cabin down from it's original place
I and rebuilt on the land in dispute
t about that time. That said cabin
e was rebuilt upon the S. f. / of n
G w. /, Sec. 8, being now 40 of tn
= land in dispute, which legal sub
S vision was entirely within the origina
Desert Entry made by John Halle,
# That up to that date the n. f. ! Of 5
y w. I, Sec. 9, being the south 40 i
e dispute, was claimed by one Nc
y Knight as shown by the testimony c
n Witness Biddy, who was called as
d witness for the contestant, showing b
TT his testimony that he aided said Nc
It light in erecting a fence from tn
"Bullion Bridge east to the frs
1t bench, and thence north by sal
re bench so or 40 rods, said east an
d west line of fence being understoo
TT as division fence between the claim
n, Of Mckni yht and Biddy; also the
er the cabin moved down by William
N and Anderson, was Il partnership prol
al erty, and was moved upon the land b
er the consent of Mcknight, who was the
A. claiming said land, and whose clai'
0, thereto was well known to William
IS and that said cabin, together with ot'
T. ers, was er, ctcd by the said parties ft
Of the purpose Of renting to the Chin;
We men for speculation.
of The testimony of Witness Ande
IN son shows that he sold his interest
Of said cabins to Mcknight, aad left f'
i'll Rocky Bar, on account OF an unplea
ct antness between Williams and hin
g self.
of We are Of the opinion from Il
III preponderance Of testimony, that II
contestant, Williams, at the time h
as Anderson and Mcknight, moved Il
he said cabin and erected others on Il
he land in DISPUTE, did not intend lawn
n claim to said tract as a pre- emptt
as or for his own exclusive use and be
on eft; he we'll knowing that said Ian
'at were claimed by John Haley as
Ids Desert Entry, as we'll as by Mcknigl
ed If it wa. Wiilians's intent to ella
ieh these lands, or any part of them und
ere the Presumption Law, he has /
}ut shown by his own line of testlmo
no that he has acted in good faith a,
The ''bona tide" settler upon SAID LAM
nd Tire principal interest that Villa