The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1893-11-07
IN THE FEDERAL COURT.
Judge Knowles Yesterday Handed
Down Decisions In Several Very
Important Cases.
Who Must Pass Upon the Char
acter Of Public Lands in
Contested Gases.
Jud eut T.isns for Labur snd Material
In This State Have Prscedsacs Over
Railroad M0rtg aRes.

The United States court met yesterday
for the October term. There 10 a lafRe
amount OF business to be transacted. both
civil and criminal. Tho grand jury vas
drawn and il will probably convene next
week. Judge Knowles yesterday handed
down five decisions. four written and one
oral. Ono OF the most important OF these
vas that of II. II. Scott vs. she Jockey In
vestmcnt company and Richard Jockey. in.
volvino land within the city limits. in the
vicinity of Lsnox. The decision was in
favor of the defendants. The defendants
claimed title 10 the land BY virtue OF .
patent from the United states. The patent
was issued for agricultural land. and the
plaintiff filed a bill 10 quist title. claiming
ths land was mineral. scott located two
claims. one in 1886 and one in 1881. The
patent was issued June ID. 1889. aud the
entry was made in 1888. Scott claimed
title by reason Of his mineral location.
and the defendant by virtue Of q United
States patent. SCOTT asked 10 have the
ratent set aside on two grounds. The frst
was hi defendants claimed the land under
and by virtue Of convey ancss from Samuel
X. Patterson and wife; that the entry Of
the and was made with . piece
Of additional homestead settler
scrip. issued under ncts Of congress
relating to soldiers homestead rights and
the homestead rights of minor children,
heirs OF deceased soldiers and ssilora II
vas alleged as one Of the grounds which
made tho patent void that Samuel Il. Pat
teEson was not a minor heir OF Samuel Pat
70 son at She time Of the entry Of the land.
but was at that date % years old. all Of
tho entry. That Jockey was the real party
In Interest,"; that Patterson never Jaw the
land In question. and 1t was not entered for
his benefit. The second ground urged for
can ceiling the patent was that the premises
we're known mineral lane at the date of
entry. and that Jockey never filed an afa-
davit OF ito non-mineral character. Tho de-
PENDANTS filed a general demurrer.
In its decision the court says: "As to the
6yst ground, il may be stated that the and
department was called upon TO determine
- to whether Patterson was q proper per-
son to enter ths land. and whether no had
performed the necessary acts 10 on
sisle him to make the same. The
suprems court says: That the
.ction Of the land office IN issuine . patent
~ IA VA sh0 kAbAAc AoAN w w DotG
By presumption or otherwise il conclusive
of the legal title must be admitted under
the prin ciple above stated. and In all courts
and In all forms Of judicial proceedings
where this title must control either by rsa-
son of tho limited powers of the court or
the essential character Of the proceedings
no inquiry can be permitted into the cir
cumstances under which it WAS obtained"
1T may also be said,' continues Judge
Knowles, that il there was any fraud
com mitted In the representation aS to the
character of Patterson or in any represen-
patent. they were representations to the
government through its officers. and any
fraud pGrpetreted thereby was upon tho
government and not upon the plaintiff. |
The government 10 the only enc who can
take advantage of such fraud.
THE second ground PRESENTS question OF
more difficulty. perhaps. From the fact
shat the land was known to be mineral at
the date OF entry, according to the state
mont In the bill, it is urged that the lane
was reserved from sale IS agricultural land
and could only be sold as mineral land.
But tine question arises how and by whom
Is the land olassed as mineral or sRrieul-
tural land. It ia hold by the su prems court
that the land department of the govern
ment is entrusted with the power Of de-
tel mining to what class any piece of land
for which an application to enter belongs.
1t would certainly be against public policy
to allow the land de. artment to make q
conveyance of q piece OF lane as agricul-
tursl and leave 1t an open question TO be de-
terminsd by a court or . jury as to whether or
not the land WAS agricultural. For this fea-
son l think it must be held that the land de-
partment conveyed TO the grantee of de-
the legal title TO the lane 40 far as
that title WAS in the government. A pri-
vsts IeFson cannot maintain an action to
set aside and aunui a patent from the
United States for fraud committed in the
United States. For these reasons l think
the demur er should be sustained. In 80
deciding l do not hold that plaintiff has no
rights to his mining possessions. That
NAV depend upon whether he has lost any
rights by not protecting the action of Pat
terson to enter the g ound and receive a
patent therefor. N@ither do / hold that
upon a proeer presentation of facts making
1t appear that he has a right to purchase
the land in controversy. the defendants
would not be compelled in n proper suit to
convey to him the legal title to the same"