The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1893-05-05
IN FAVOR OF BROOKE.
Another Doclaion for tho Claimant Involv
ing Lnud Near Helena.

Another Doclaion for tho CialMAnt Involv-
ing Land Near Helena.
Tho local land ofloc 10 In receipt Of Z do
oision by tho commissioner OF the general
land office involving a piece OF land west Of
Helena, filed on by DR.. Il. G. Brooke in
1886. and on which he spent a great deal of
Money in putting down an aftesinn we'll.
DIR. Brooke made . commuted cash entry
for tho land in that year. and two years
afterwArd Edward Jordan tlled q protest
against granting Brooke a patent, alleging
that the land was mineral n not AQsioult-
ural; that Il, coke had not given proper
notice OF his intention ~ make fnal proof,
and that no had not complied with tho law
IN the matter of residence and improve
ments. On the hearing hsfors Register
LanRhornc and Receiver Howell dissenting
opinions were given, the register In favor Of
Brooke. and tho receiver adverse. but both
special value. On appeal to the general
sustained. Then Jordan Appealed
to the secretary Of the in
sustained the commissioner. Then . mo-
ported by an affidavit BY +. NJ. Wilson, who
had offered TO file a homestead application
for the tract Dot. 90, 1892. This applioa-
ton Of wilson was rejected by the local
lane office on the same day Y was fled on
tho ground that the land Wilson wanted
was covered by Brooke's entry. Feb. 3. 1898.
the secretary denied the motion for review.
and sustained his decision Of the year pre-
yious. and on Fob. "a the case known -
Jordan ". Brooke WAS finally olose1.
But that was not the end OF the cnse. be-
cause March %. 1898, Jos. H. Boucher made
a protest against granting 4 patent to
Brooke. Boucher claimed no apparent in
Ao.a.A H., Aha lar1 hnk nlIono1 hfA ~i11tu 4.
ness to pay tho expenses Of a hearing to
prove that Brooke never established his
residence on the land az required BY law,
that the land WAS vacant and unoccupied,
tina Brooke never cultivated nor improved
it. and that tho.e are no improve,
also alleged tina. in 1890 William {. Hickey
offered a filing for a mineral location for
the Pride of Helena lode. but the local
officers rejected it because 1t conflicted
with the Brooke entry. The Hickey re-
j%eosion was appealed from. The commits
Gliding the Hickey arplication. and the
Boucher protest. says: "There are no allie.
cations whatever in the protest Of Joseph
H. Boucher that differ in any essential
particulars from those set out in tho for
mer protest of Jordan. on which the hear
ing was held, and which we're duly con
sidered and passed upon both by this Office
and the department.. must therefore de-
clare the questions Of Bsooke's residence
and improvements on the tract res judioats.
and the protest of Boucher is accordingly
forthwith dismissed. The protest of VIM.
G. Hickey ia also hereby dismissed under
the authority Of the decision in the case Of
Harr!sh VS.. Wallace, in which il was held
that in order to defeat q presumption entry
on the ground Of the mineral character Of
the LAM it must be shown that mineral was
known to exist at the date of entry. Mr..
Brooke's cash entry was made Jan. 6,
1885. The original discovery and location
of the Pride Of Helena lode claim was made
Sept. 10, 1883. and the case. therefore.
comes clearly within the rule established
by the decision referred TO-"
The ptotestants have the right Of appeal
to the secretary Of the interior.
Boys knee pants and boys waists in all ages