The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1892-04-25
HE WANTED NO FARM.
Hewitt's Claim to Part of
Everett Is Forfeited.
DECISION IN THE LAND OFFICE.
His Forty-Acre Homestead Filing
Declared to Have Been Made for
Purely Speculative Purposes.

An important decision, involving the
title to forty acres of valuable property ~
ing within the limits of the town of
Everett. was given Saturday by Register
Reed and Receiver Ogden, of the local
land office, canceling the homestead entry
Of William II. Hewitt. The contest was
begun January 26. 1892, by William L.
Overly against William Fl. Hewitt, the
claimant. Attorney Frank Randolph, as
sisted by j. 7. Ronald. appeared for
Overly, and 0strander & Gregory for
Hewitt.
William III. Hewitt made homestead
entry FOR the southwest quarter of north
west quarter section II, township % north,
range east. October 20, 1890. and offered
final proof May g. 1891. On November ID,
1891. William L. Overly filed affidavit of
contest against this entry, alleging that
the claimant had not. prior TO the time of
making final proof. established bona ide
residence on the land, nor since that time
resided on the land, as required
by law. He also alleged that the
claimant was the son of Henry
Hewitt, jr., president of the Everett Land
Company, incorporated November 10. 1890.
its object being to establish TOWNSHIP at
or near the mouth of the Snohomish river,
which was known to the claimant when
he made his entry. Therefore he alleged
that the entry was made for speculative
purposes and fraud under the home
stead law. The foregoing allegations were
made from personal knowledge and in the
belief that Henry Hewitt bought the re-
linquishment to the land for $1,000 and
caused William II. Hewitt to enter and
acquire title thereto for the benefit of
Henry Hewitt, jr., and others.
From the testimony of w. f. Brown,
Henry Hewitt, jr.'s agent, it appeared that
he began the purchase of land at and
about the present townsite of Everett,
August 8, 1890. A month later he sus-
pected his employers intentions of start
ing town. He bought the relinquish-
ment of the land in contest from William
Shearcr for 81, 900. The opinion states on
this point that the price was excessive for
agricultural purposes, and strongly cor
roborative of the contestants allegation
that the claim was bought for speculative
purposes.
The claimants testimony was to the e.
feet that he took up the homestead be-
cause his father had told him he was GO
ing to put in mill and boom site. He
denied knowledge of intended improve
ments and interest of any other person
than himself in the land. That Hewitt
complied with the bare requirements of
law concerning residence and improve.
ments the opinion does not question.
The evidence OF Henry Hewitt, jr., is
spoken of as equivocal and in some re-
spects contradicted by records He claimed
that at the time his sons REIMBURSEMENT
was bought he did not contemplate extern
sive improvements in the vicinity. The
records show that prior to October 20, 1890.
Mr.. Hewitt purchased land in excess of
the requirements of the location of mill
and boom site, and 10 the time of contest
no Mort had been made TO put in a mill or
boom site. Thirty days after the purchase
of the REIMBURSEMENT from Shearer, Henry
Hewitt, jr., entered into an agreement
with Wyatt j. Rucker and Bethel ].
Rucker obiigating himself for valuable
donation of land to build a saw mill.
a railroad, plant for manufacture of steel
bargcs and dry dock, and the agreement
provided for the plating and division of
the land conditionaliy granted by the
Fuckers. With these facts IN view, the
register is of the opinion that the purchase
was made solely for speculative purposes,
and that the Everett townsite was pro-
jected at the time of purchase.
In summing up, the opinion says:
The price paid for and the quality OF the land,
circumstances concerning the purchase and re-
linquishncnt and the fact that the claimant
has made no effort to put his land under Guilt
walton preclude the idea that this entry was
made for agricultural purposes. We are of the
opinion that the entry was made for specula-
ton, and we therefore find that the homestead
entry No 1874, Of William II. Hewitt, for the
sw Z of the NV 4 of section II, township %