The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-03-06
MILLER HAS FIRST CLAIM.

A I.ong-Peuding Land Contest Decided
by General Commissioner.
Tho ioca! land Office yesterday received
n decision from the general land COM
missioner In the case OF Daniel r. Carr VS..
William l.. Miller. involving the North
west half of the northeast quarter. and
southeast quarter OF the northwest quar-
ter of section s,stownship q north, range
s east. located on Lake Washington, In
which the action of the local land office
Is affirmed in favor of Miller, who liz
known among his former nefghbcrs as
crazy Miller, being the son OF the sas-
pected murderer OF J. Manning Coiman.
The land In controversy was at one time
Withdrawn for the benefit OF the Northern
Pacific Railroad Company. but all claim
of that company Is how eliminated.
On November IL. 1854. Frances II. Led
ger applied 60 file presumption declara-
tory statement for the northeast quarter
and northeast quarter OF northwest quar-
ter of section 5, alleging settlement Mo-
vemtisr s. iSs4 On January Is. 1886. VIII
liam l.. Miller made homestead entry for
the southeast quarter of northwest quar-
ter. southwest quarter OF northeast
quarter and north half OF northeast quar-
ter OF the same section, alleging settle
ment i'm November. 1854 On the same day
George A. Taylor filed a deeiaratory state
ment for tf.a north half Of northeast
quarter and southwest quarter OF north
east quarter of the same section. alleging
settlement January =. 1856. On January
-, 1885. Daniel T. Carr applied TO file pre-
emption dsclaratoFy statement for the
northeast quarter az the northeast quar-
ter, west half of northeast quarter and
southeast quarter OF northwest quarter
OF the same section This application
was rejected because the land was en-
hraced ia Miiler's homestead entry. Carr
appealed. alleging that Millers home
stead entry was Illegal for the yeason
that Miller was not qualified 10 make II.
on February q. iSss. Carr made affidavit
that Miller was then under q years OF
age and not the head of a family. and
asked a hearing 10 determine Msller's
qualifications This application was cor
robnratea by that of Albert Burrows fled
March .. iSSs.
ON January =. isas. Carr filed an Affida-
Wit In which he said that he settled on
the land January $. ISIS; that on Janu-
airy IS lSs5. he completed the foundation
OF a hozse and dii other work on IL: that
the appeal. taken by him from the re-
lection Of his application. was ssiii pend
Ing and undetermined that he had re-
sided on improved and cultivated the
tract s9d In every way complied with
the presumption law so as 10 entIsie him
TO make proof therefor. that Miller has
not complied with the homestead law a.
10 residence and cultivation: that his
residence has only been at Intervals, and
that during the last year he has neither
raised crop nor resided on The lard and
he asked that Miiler's entry Be cancelled
and his application allowed. al parties
were given hearing February II, 1854.
at which Carr and Miller were present
but Ledger made default.
The commissioner Gays; "ff Taylor set
tied on the land covered by his fsling
January ~ tSS. Il is clear he Gla not
follow such se;;iemen, MP by occupancy.
and that he has neither Inhabited !ssa-
proved ner erected q dwelling house
thereon. Ssnce January ~ ssSS now over
ten years. he has totally failed 20 Prose
cute any claim re may once have had TO
the tract. His pre-empsien niinw l.,
therefore. hereby cancelled. ard this can
collation.. the elimination cf the railroad
claim sna the default % Ledger. reduce
the parties 10 the proceedings 60 Miller
aas Carr"
THE local Office held that there were
oniy two questions 20 ae determined. the
aEs of Miller az the time be male hts
entry and the priority Of the settlement
Of the respective Parties On the land tn
viewed. and decided that tire rrrponsasr-
enee az evidence establishes the fact 81
Niller's prior settlement and OF hlS being
ef ae. az the tfrse be rendered hts April
cation. From this decision Carr arpeaaeSf
The commissioner coEsessS ia this Fn3-
ing cs MtIier'S priarsTy and age hest aoeS
not concur that these are the oaly CUES
ssossx presented IN the case. as the tssaza
raised by Carr im his AFFIDAVIT alleging
residence ard improvements seeass s0
have been overlooked by ire leeAs oe.cs.
sfsSA esskls~