Custer chronicle. [volume] (Custer City, Black Hills, D.T. [S.D.]) 1880-1890, 1886-03-06
CUSTER CHRONICLE
A Land Decision.

DEPARTMENT OF TIE INTERIOR, !
GENERAL LAND OFFICE, :
WASHINGTON, ID. g.. Feb. %, 1856 }
Register and Receiver, Deadwood, Oak.
GENTLEMAN:-I have your letter OF
Decembe, 2S, 1885, submitting the proof
Of Harvey j. Churchill, under ID. s.
5000, February 8, 1885, for NE Of NE l
sec. Is, w J ofNW and NV /! of SW "
sec. II, township %, range 8 +, b. II. NJ.
and the protest against allowance OF
entry by Jacob CAN'T.
Churchill made proof after duly pub
lished notice September Is, 1886. before
the clerk of the district court Of PEN
nington county, on which occasion
Gantz appeared, filed his protest, and
was allowed to cross-question Churchill
and n of his witnesses after the proof
was made.
This proof was submitted to you and
as Gantz subsequently filed an affidavit
alleging an informality in the original
proceedings ii. e.. that Churchill made
and filed further testimony after the
close of the case, you ordered a hear
ing to be had November 10, 1885, at
which Churchill with witness appeared,
and Gantz made default, whereby you
are of the opinion that the entry Of
Churchill should be allowed on the
proof submitted, che having been put
TO great expense and the protestant
having failed to appear when he had an
opportunity and due notice"
Gantz does not appear to be a party
to the record, nor does it appear that he
has any intention Of claiming the land.
There are technical reasons raised by
Churchill's attorney in his brief, alleg-
ing irregularities in the proceedings,
which it is not deemed necessary to
discuss, as the only practical question
at issue is the suficiency of Churchill's
proof and his right of entering there
under.
The ordinary p~re-emption proof of
claimant shows him to be fully quail
fed that his improvements are valued
at S4O0, and that his residence has been
from March / to September 10, 1855,
Continuous"
BY the evidence throughout through
examination it is shown that
Churchill is a physician, having an
Office in Rapid City, sixteen and n e
half miles from his ella m, and al inter-
est in a drug store in that town. His
wife, however, is alleged land it is not
disputed) to have resided continuously
on his claim from the date Of his alleged
settlement, but his visits to the land do
not, as a rule, appear to have been
oftener than once or twice each week.
Mr.. Churchill admits that his practice
has necessitated his absence a large part
of the time, and that his Office was Mt
Rapid City, as well AZ his interest in the
drug business, and it is therefore quite
evident that he is not such a pre-emp-
ton claimant as the law was designed
to benefit, or as the law can protect, in
view Of which / am unable to agree
with you In your conclusions. The law
requires inhabitancy, and continuous
residence for a period Of not less than
six months is a requirement, established
~ long practice Of prescriptions on
public lands. That Mr.. Churchill has
not met such requirements is sufficient
" evident from his own admission, and
therefore the continuous residence Of
his wife does not operate to overcome
the personal requirements of himself as
the principal in interest.
For reasons stated said proof is re-
and you will 50 notify claimant,
allowing sixty days for appeal, under
usual restrictions, and promptly report
action. Very Respectfully,
S. NJ. SToCKsLAGER,
Assist ant Commissioner.