The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1894-08-31

Grant applied for deed to lots IS
and 10 in said block SO, and in his APP /
plication he states. on his oath, that /
he is the occupant Of said lots under /
claim of right, and believes that he is
entitled TO a deed for the same; that |
he settled upon, occupied and i'm
proved, said lots on the afternoon OF
April %, lss9, building thereon and
continuing TO occupy (the) lots afore-
said antil on or about the 25th of May,
1850, when, during his absence on
business off the premises, hls building
vas remO- ed from said lots and des-
troyed by parties who took possession
and sold said lots to the present occu-
pants, and, further. that the present
occupants of said lots, as your nfliant
is informed and verify believes. are
disqualified by acts of congress ap-
proved March ., 1889, and (the) presi.
dents proclamation relative thereto,
to hold or obtain deeds TO (the) lots
aforesaid; that he Grant did not
| enter upon said lots, nor did said terri
tory, in violation Of the act of congress
approved March 9, 1850. nor OF the
| proclamation of the president OF the
| United States issue hereunder"
In his appeal Grant insists that the
decision of the board refusing TO set
aside said default, 'is contrary TO law.
inequitable and unjust Contrary to
law 80 this:
}. said board erred in adjudging the
said Joseph Grant in default prior to
the time trial actually takes place.
2. Said board erred in not reinstat-
ing SAID Grant on showing made in
application fled in SAID cause And
he asks that the decision o' ne board
denying his said applicatiC Or rein
statement be overruled and that he be
allowed Il hearing in the case.
The objections to the ruling of the
board in this matter are well taken.
IL was clearly unjust, under the state
of facts shown, to deny Grant an op-
portunity to be heard in support OF
his claim to said lots The action of
said board in denying him the right
to be so heard as to the lot in contro-
versy in this case is therefore, hereby
set aside and rescinded; and in accord
ance herewith you will order the hear
ing ; sized for by Grant
At the hearing had between Caruth'
ers and Adams, claiming Jointly, and
said McLain, the dispositions of several
witnesses and over hundred pages of
typewriter testimony of witnesses on
the stand were introduced as evidence
In the final disposition of the case this
testimony cannot be considered, so
far rs it may affect his claim, without
Grants consent This testimony is
herewith returned, and If the said
Grant or his attorney will file his
written consent therefor, the same
may be resubmitted in behalf of Ca
rutherg, Adams and McClain, or either
of them, together with such additional
evidence as they may see proper to lay
before you in support of their several
claims; but should the said Grant re.
fuse to make the consent alluded TO,
then the case to be proceeded with de
novo. No action will be taken on the
appeal of Caruthers and Adams until
the Office Is in condition 10 adjudicate
the claims of all of said applicants.
The applications of the parties are
herewith inclosed to form the basis OF
the bearing TO be ordered by you.
Give due notice hereof and promptly
report action taken. Very respect
fully, EDWARD A. BowERs, -
Acting Commissioner.