The L'Anse sentinel. (L'Anse, L.S., Mich.) 18??-current, 1891-09-05
Arendt was Fordney, who identified the
the power of attorney under which he

acted, and. after testifying to th.
presentation: of such instrument and
Arendts application to the local officers
as heretofore mentioned, he said, upon
ross-examination, that he never had
any acquaintance with Arendt; that he
had received the soldiers certificate and
power of attorney in February or March,
1884, from one Wilhelm Boeing OF De-
trot; that said Boeing was an interest
ed party, and that under n col act
with Boeing, he (Fordney) was to have
an interest in the proceeds of the land
in question as compensation for locat-
ing the said scrip or certificate thereon.
Fordney further testifyed that he did
not know whether Arendt was alive or
dead at the date of the presentation of
said certificate for location at the local
Office.
Counsel for Cameron. thereupon, Insis.
ted that Arendt's application should not
be allowed by reason OF the fact that
the testimony thus presented and the
facts disclosed by the record showed
| that Cameron had the prior right to
the land in CONTROVERSY and also that
the certificate issued TO AreDdt was not
assignable and that the to e.timony
offered by Fordney showed that sid
application had not been made in the
interest of the soldier, but for the beDe-
/ fit of Boeing, Fordney, or other per-
sons.
Upon consideration of the case, the
register and receiver held that, not
withstanding Cameron hal settled upon
the Ian in Septeml er, 1887, yet
Arendt, bv reason of his application,
resented in 1884, had rrior right to
the land in dispute; that his application
was "claim, arising ont OF settlement
rights. having its inception in the orig
inal settlement made by claimant under
his first homestead entry; that no uct-
/! nal settlement was required of him uu-
/ der this entry; and that his right to
have these lands absolutely ~ tached ut
the earliest moment when those lands
were open for Sc tlement" The local
officers also held that it is mmarterial
whether or not he may have contracted
! to give or sell an interest in said lands,
when so lccited, to other par ies."
From this dicision of the register and
receiver, Cameron, Oh My 20, 1889,
duly perfected an apreil
Fehruiry 81, 1890, one Grant A. Lee
| filed in the local office au application to
contest the pending application of
| Arendt as to that portion of the land in
c.uded therein not in disp lie between
/ Arendt and Cameron, i. a., the NW4
| NW4 OF sad Sec. % alleging as
/ grounds therefor that said scrip at
tempted to he located under Arendt's
application had been assigned. and was,
therefore, void. and that Fordnev had
stated under oath that he and WILHELM
| Boeing were to have an interest in said
land.
| April 5, 1890, the register and
/ receiver considered Lees application TO
contest and rejected the same upon the
ground that Arend.'s application hav
ing been presented under "dnly au-
| thorized certifcation OF the additional
right must be considered rs an appro-
priation OF the land under nnimpeach-
/ able authority" that 10 hearing seeking
to impeach the regularity OF said appli'
cation could be granted: and that ait
was not competent for the office to in
quire into the private arrangements Of
the parties, relating to the disposition
of said land after the same shall have
been entered"
Lee u, pea!ed from this action OF the
local officers, and on August IA, 1890,
letter H." this office. having under
! considerati, the appeals of both Cam
eron and Lee, affirmed the decision of
said officers rejecting Lees application
to contest and awarded the land to
| Arendt, holding as matter OF law that
.AEendt'S right to make the proposed
hntfy admits Of no dispute and that he
is authorized to exercise such right in
| person or by attorney without inquiry
as to his purpose"
The motion herein filed for review of
the above decision of affirmance, alleges
that said decision is contrary to law,
and such motion is substantially based
upon three grounds:
l. That this office erred in rejecting
Lees application to contest;
2. That there was error in holding
that Arendt's right under this applica-
tion were prior to Cameron's claim un-
der his settlement;
II g. That it was error to hold that
fArendt had q rights to assign his certif-
cate OF right to make soldiers addi-
tional entry and to have the same locat-
ed without inquiry by this Office as to
purpose in making such entry.
Exhaustive briefs have been filed by
the counsel OF the respective parties
and the questions preseute Ivy the
motion will be considered ny bri, fly as
possible in the order named above.
1t is apparent from the foregoing that
Lee has no interest in the land in ques-
ton, save that lie is attempting to con-
test the pending application of Arendt
to make soldiers additional homestead
entry upon said land. Lee has no set
Element claim for any portion of the
land involved nor has he made applica-
tion to eater any part OF the same.
Section OF the act of May IL, 1890,
recognizes and authorizeg, by implica-
ton, homestead, or timber culture
ENTRY rule of practice provides that
contest may be initiated against party
to an Sentry, filling or other claim" un-
der laws Of congress relating to the
public lands; and the circular Of gener-
al land Office, issued January /, 1889,
page 80, authorizes contest to be initial,
ed against filling, entry, location OF