The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1893-02-05
SCOFIELD TOWNSHIP.
A Decision Sustaining the Eccles
Homestead Entry.
Mr.. EccIes' Eighty Acres Excluded from
the TownsIte Entry-Decision of the
Registrar and Receiver.

The registrar and receiver of the land
office yesterday made the following de-
cision in the case filed below, which in
wolves the property rights to the town
site OF the mining camp of Scofield.
United States Land Ofice-John ii.
Eccles VS.. the application to enter the
townsite of Scotield, Emery county,
Utah.
On Aug. "a, 1891, John H. EccIes ten
dered homestead application covering
eighty acres OF land now in dispute, which
application was received and made of
record.
On Aug. 81, 1891, Jasper Robertson, at
that time probate judge OF Emery county,
tiled an application to enter certain lands
! QncludIng the eighty acres in behalf Of
and for the benefit of the citizens OF the
town of Scofield supporting such appli-
cation with affidavit as to the number of
inhabitants, the nom mineral character of
the land, etc.
Joseph F. Simons and s. w. Darke, at
torneys for Eccles, filed protest against
the allowance of the proof, on the
grounds that the probate Judge was not
the proper officer to make townsite en-
tries in Utah, and especially protesting
against the en6ry of the eighty acres COW
cred by the homestead fling. The date
for considering the proof was continued
to December 2, upon which date the ap-
pllcaticn to make townsite entry was re-
jected. for the reason that under the de-
ciSion of the honorable commissioner of
the general land office, in the Woodruff
townsite case, the probate Judge had no
! Jurisdiction to make the entry.
Jasper Robertson appealed from this de-
cis1on and the case has been pending ever
since. Following is the text of the last
! decision:
"We are cited by the attorney for the
townsite people, to a line of decisions
holding in substance that land occupied
as townsite and embraced within such
an application is not subject to home
stead entry, and that certain number of
acres may be entered, Notwithstanding
the fact that each smallest legal portion
is not used for municipal purposes, and
that settlement cannot be acquired on
lands that are embraced within prior
townsite claim.
"But we can nowhere find any law or
decision that would warrant US in rec
ommending the cancellation of a prior
homestead entry made upon unoccupied
land and subject to such entry because
subsequently it is desired to include that
land in the townsite entry. The evidence
is clear that, at the time Eccles made his
homestead entry, the land was subject to
such entry, was not then, and has not
been since, up to the date of hearing,
used for townsite purposes, and we can
see no reason why his rights should be
summarily set aside, especially as it is
apparent that the failure of the toWnsite
people to make their entry in time was
caused by negligence or Indifference
which in no manner can be charged to
Mr.. Eccles. Our decision is that the pro
test of MIR. Eccles has been sustained, and
that the townsite application should only
be considered for that portion not in
Guided in the homestead entry of Mr.
Eccles, and we recommend be rejected to
or, +rry