Wood River times. [volume] (Hailey, Idaho) 1882-1915, 1892-10-17
THE ROGERS vs.. DUNIWAY APPEAL

Deo'SsV" ~ rAVOT III neEpOnOe0t-Aps
pellant Proved Up ON Land Owned
by Lawson.
On the 9Th of October Commits sioner
Stone, of the General Land Office,
rendered . decision in tho contest Of
Chris. Rogers against w. C. Duni.
way, on appeal from the HALEY Land
Office, involving title to lands on
Alder Creek, Custer county.
The Commissioner finds that tech>
nically Rogers has no case on appeal,
but valves tho technicality, goes into
the merits Of the contest, and decides
that Rogers has no claim whatever to
any Of the ground embraced in Duni>
ways entry. He therefore notifies
the Register and Receiver of the Hal
ley Land Office that the contest
against Duniway's entry is dismissed.
The Commissioner decides substan.
TALLY that Rogers ranch 10 the land
which Duniway asserts should right
fully belong to Rogers-the 16O acres
which Rogers has lived upon and
occupied and cultivated since 1854
no part of which 10 in Duniways
entry. This brings up the facts in
remarkable case.
In 1883 ono Frank ]. Scott made .
desert entry OF $40 acres on sage
brush land adjacent to Alder Creek.
In 1886 Duniway bought SCOTS re-
linquishment and entered the identical
GAO acres himself. In 1888 the waters
of Alder creek, which had been
bought by Duniway to reclaim his
desert entry, wore the subject OF liti-
CATION, and the decree was in Duni-
ways favor save that Judge Berry,
before whom the case was tried,
promulgated his novel idea Of "public
policy" in regard to water and
awarded the defendants, Paul P.
Lawson and Chris. Rogers, each ten
inches of water from tho creek, after
finding that it was the property Of
Duniway. After the water case was
settled Duniway proved up on hi.
land and adjusted to the government
survey OF 1890. Shortly thereafter
Rogers filed a contest against Duni.
ways land, alleging that Duniway
had adjusted bis entry to cover lands
which were part Of Rogers home
stead.
The General Land Office ordered Z
hearing before the HALEY Land Office
to determine whether or not Duni'
ways desert entry had been adjusted
to cover Stands which had beer
claimed by and rightfully belonged t
Rogers" The case was heard il
HALEY a year ago, and was long sne
bitterly fought, occupying two full
weeks, including several evenings
Duniway denied that he included an!
land which ever was rightfully olaime'
by Rogers and boldly declared tina
Rogers had allowed Paul P. Lawson
! to take and prove up on the choices
portions OF bis (RogefsO homestead
embracing land on which Rogers ha
valuable improvements, including hi
house, stable, granary, root house
corrsls, garden, meadow, pasture. etc
and charged that Lawson and Roger
were 10 collision to get enough Ian
from Duniway to make good tbs
! which Rogers had allowed Lawson t
take.
The decision of the Commission.
of the General Land Office seems
sustain this view, for he holds th'
u Rogers claim includes eighty acres
which Paul P. Lawson has mac
y homestead proof (being the NW4
}. SW4 and SW4 of NW4 and SW4
d NW4 of Section l3, TIP. 5, N.
rs E). So the result of the decise
a is that Rogers is entitled to 80 acr
n on which Lawson has made homestel
}. proof, and Duniway's entry remain
Is intact.