The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-08-03
REHEARING ORDERED
Title to Part of Everett Town
site Still i'm Doubt.
sINEs, HEIRS TO BE HEARD AGAIN
Secretary Noble Eeverses the General
Land once in the Famous Sno-
homish County Case.


Noble of the Sines land contest, which in
wolves valuable property in the townsite OF
Everett, was received at the local land
office Yesterday. As stated IN the Posi-
ISTELLs EScEs a week ago the secretary
orders a rehearing. The title of the case
is Viola g. Hanscom VS.. the heirs of
George W. Sines. entryman; Herman A.
Fisher, second contestant, and James I.
Lentzy. intervenor" The secretary up
holds the decision of the commissioner of
the general land Office in but one instance
the rejection of the homestead applica-
ton for the land by James I. LentZy. The
case has been in hearing for several years.
appeals having been taken to the commits
sioner at Washington and from his de-
cision to Secretary Noble. The secretarys
decision in full is as follows:
l have considered the case of Viola g. hans
com vs. The Heirs of George W. Sines. entry
man, Herman A. Fisher. second contestant, and
James 7. LentZy, intervenor. an appea. by said
heir. and said Fisher from your decision dated
October y, 1891, holding intact the homestead
entry No. s,2S3 OF lots 5. s, and the ei9 OF the
swlx quarter OF section -, township 20 north o.
range east, made April IL. lSs2, by said eines
81 the Olympia land Office in Washington terri
tory, now the state of Washington. and allow
ing the heirs, in case said decision becomes
final, TO make final proof in support OF their
claim 70 said land.
The record shows that said snes on Nover-
Der 6, ls79, fled in said local Office his pre-eInp-
ton deciarato-y statement for said land, alleg-
ing settlement thereon September I, same year.
On April ID, ISs2, since made his homestead
entry, and in his homestead affidavit. made be-
fore the clerk of the court, declared his settle
ment was commenced April 5, 1Ss2'
On February 10. 1ss7, without having made
final proof, Siaes died. On June ]. 1sSS asid
Hanscom initiated g contest against said entry.
alleging that the entryman had wholly aban-
doned said tract; that he died on about Febru-
airy 10, is,. without heirs residing in said terri
tory; that the heirs of Sines had not since his
death complied with the requirements of law as
TO improvement and cultivati on OF said land,
and that the entryman cid not duly cultivate
and improve the same in his lifetime. her
ing was accordingly had on December =. LIS.
and the local officers, upon theex p.r'e testi-
mony submitted by the contestant, recon-
mended said entry for cancellation On Sep
tember Is lsel, you remanded said case for a
new hearing because no sufficient showing was
made by the contestant upon which service by
publication was made, which decision you re-
ffirmei on November Is following.
On December 20, 1891, notice was issued,
directed 10 the "heirs and legal representatives
OF George W. Sines. deceased alleging aband-
made. fixing the hearing at March Is, 1921, and
copy thereof mailed TO George Sines, one OF
the heirs OF said deceased eutryman at Edge
Hill. Pa on February IA 1891 Herman A.
Fisher presented his affidavit of contest against
said entry, which was filed subject 10 the prior
contest o. Hanscom. On the day fixed for the
hearing the contestant appeared and moved for
continuance in order to perfect service upon
other heirs whose whereabouts she had learned
within the last few days.
Upon the same day said Fisher filed motion
TO dismiss Hauseom's contest for want OF sui
fcient service, and that his contest be submitted
therefor. The local Office overruled the motion
OF said HanscoIn for continuance. and also
said motion OF Fisher Thereupon the hearing
proceeded, and the contestant submitted evil
dence.
On June l, lSai, one James L. Lentz fled his
homestead application Tor said tract, alleging
settlement thereon March 10. 1891, and the same
being rejected, an appeal was taken therefrom
on July IL, 1891.
On July p, 1891, prior TO any decision
of the local officers upon the evidence taken in
the Hanscom contest, counsel for the heirs of
said Sines entered their appearance aud filed a
motion that the proceedings OF said contest be
stayed, which was denied by the local officers,
who on July 81 same year, rendered their de-
cision that said entry should be cancelled and
the preference right OF entry awarded to the
contestant motion was made for counsel for
said heirs to reopen the case. which was refused
by the local officers and an appeal from the de-
csion OF the local Office was duly taken by
counsel for the heirs OF Sines IL further ap-
pears that said Fisher and Lentzy each appealed
from the several rulings OF the local Office ad-
verse to them, but the appeal OF Leutzy was mo-.
duly forwarded by the local Office. On October
-, 1891, you considered the appeals OF the said
heirs OF sines aud OF said Fisher, and after re-
citing the history of the case substantially as
aforesaid, dismissed the appesl OF said Fisher
upon the grounds that he Is stranger 10 the
record and must wait until there is final dis
position OF the Hanscom contest.
You also dismissed the appeals of the heirs
from the action OF the local officers rejecting
their otter 10 make final proof on account of
the pending contest OF Han com. You also
found that the notice OF publication was duly
made on tie heirs, who were al non-residents,
and notice 20 Charles -lnes, the only one known
10 the contestant, WAS received by him mo c
than thirty days prior TO the day set for hearing
that as To the heirs unknown to the contestant
/ Il Was not possible Tor her TO give notice by
registered letter AMI she was guilty OF no
| laches by not attempting TO give notice TO
them; that the objection TO the affidavit of con-
test not well taken because il alleged that
tie entrymaa did not in hislife time comply
/ with the Jaw and the heirs had not done so
sinC2 his death. But You reversed
/ the decision OF tue local officers
upon the ground that the non
/ resident unknown heirs were entitled to a
| reasonable time within which TO come in and
/ be heard as 60 the charges alleged against them
/ OF the deceased entrymau; you also held that
/ said entry should not be contested upon any
charge or TO she failure OF the heirs TO cultivate
| and improve said land. since il appears tina.
! said entryman Sic for said land under the pre-
! emptiOn law, alleg ug settlement september /.
/ 1879. also made said homestead entry on Aprll
/ l., 1872, and IN February, 1S>-, was removed
/ fron his cabin on said land to
/ hospital, where he died: that If
/ tie law and was entitled TO make fual proof, at
] tie date Of his death. the heirs should not be
! charged WIKI laches a. to The cultivation and
Improvement If the land subseQ uently 10 the
/ entEymau death. You fuFtha. re q tnat SIS the
cuiy charge that could be considered AZ said
hca- n was the failure OF the entrymsu 20 COM
ry WIKI the iaw as t. residence cultivation and
/ improvement, and the contestant fails 10 sub
/ m,t aay testimony tending to show the truth of
! that allegation. the contest must be dismissed
/ aut # yuUr decision should become anal the
| heirs would oe allowed 70 submit final proof,
| From Won: decision both Hanscom and Fisher
/ appealed. ana lenuy also asked 10 be allowed
] % intervene and he allowed 70 enter said land
I u"cer hls homestead application.
/ In Han-coms appeal II was urged. among
other th.ngS, vhat ven erred ia finding that the
heirs oi >.nes have exercised due diligence in
entering taelr appearance and setting up i rner.
! itoflous defense, Ehat IL was wro4g 10 consider
the faet that said entry man made pre-eFnption
! filing Tor sad land al the time OF HIS iecease.
/ and had earned Ms pateat, taaT It was error 10
/ hold that The contestant had Eol proven eaeh
ana every allegation in haF coute All iAyft In
rs sppf Al Usher alleged error - hold thsr said