The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1895-03-22
FIRE CLAY Is NOT IN 1T
Charley HarrlnstOn's Dairy Won't Need
To MOY,.
HE HAS WON HIS LAND SUIT
The Contest Ended by Peter NJ.
Thompson and F. p. ChrIsman
involving Some Property
Near Anaconda.
Special Dispatch 10 the Standard.

Special Dispatch TO the Standard.
HELENA, March 2l.-The case of F. p.
ChrIsman and Peter NJ. Thompson VS..
Chas. I. Harrington was decided yester-
day in the local land office. The SUIT in
volved the homestead entry of Defendant
| Harrington to 100 acres of land located
near Anaconda. The plaintiff protested
TO the issuance of a patent to Harring-
ton, thus claiming that the land is more
valuable for mineral than for agricultural
| purposes. The protest was filed Aug. -,
1893. Application for n hearing was made
March IL, 1894, and two months later the
parties concerned appeared before Benz.
Z. Mahan, a notary public at Anaconda,
and gave their testimony. The taking of
| testimony began April p and ended
| May 10.
The following is the text of the decision:
The question involved is whether the land in
question. the ;. W a OF Sec. 81 Up. y, Il.
II W., is more valuable for agriculture or for
mineral purposes. Ii appears that Harrington
settled on this land in April. 1855. and at that
time filed a declaration OF Occupany Of the
land with the county clerk of Deer Lodge
county.
The testimony shows that Harrington at once
began improving the place and continued to
make IL his homo TO the present time. After
settling on il he secured survey of tho land
and flied on il Jan. 81, 1898. and made final
proof June Il, 1893. While the land cannot be
considered desirable farming land, IL seems that
Harrington cultivated from TO II acres raising
good crops thereon and utilized the remainder
for grazing purposes Harrington has now oc-
cupied the land about nino years and has eX-
pended considerable sum on IL in the way OF
buildings, fences, etc, besides building bridge
and constructing "A dam for iTrgating purposes;
his improvements are of permanent character.
HARRINGTON =
faith in the matter and has utilized the place
for about the only purpose it seems adapted
the dairy business-as the hills, which cannot
be cultivated. furnish feed for his stock.
We are of the opinion that the evidence fails
to show that the property has any value for fire
clay. The assays furnished by contestants
leave the quality OF the fire clay very much in
doubt, while IL is a well known fact that assays
made from small specimens are Of little value.
No evidence is furnished that any fire clay has
ever been mined on this land at n profit.
Seba. one Of the witnesses for the contestants.
appears TO be the only one who ever shipped
any quantity OF the clay and he admits that the
shipment he made was made at a loss. The
land in question lies within one mile OF the
largest smelling plant In the world where large
quantities of fire clay are used and railroad
runs through the property, furn shng cheap
transportation, and yet II appears that the prop
erty has never been worked and the evidence in
the case warrants us in believing that the loca-
lions OF contestants were not maze Tor the
mineral the land contained The testimony
shows that there are thousands OF acres of land
in the vicinity yet unclaimed which are as valu-
able for fire clay the land In controversy, and
we are OF the opinion that IL this land was
located farther away from the city of Anaconda
that il would not have been loca ed for miner.tl
purposes.
Regarding the publication OF notice, It is true
the notice should have been inserted in a news
paper in Anaconda. but it is not shown that the
fact that II was not was m any way Influenced by
the claimant The register Of the land Office has
entire control over the publication of notices. and
is not tas intmated by prOtestants attorney
infuenc ID by the wishes o. the applicant
One of the witness for Harrington in mis- final
PROOF testifies that Thompson, one OF the pro-
testants. knew tia. Harrington was going TO
make final proof on his homestead, vet he did
not appear to enter a protest. All parties
claiming adversely TO the homestead claimant
have appeared at this hearing and no evidence
has been offered showing any failure ON the
part OF the homestead claimant In complying
with the homestead law. and we are OF ths
opinion that the error in the selection o. the
paper for publishing notice OF final proof has
been met by the hearing in this case After
careful examination of all the testimony offered
we are of the opinion that no part OF the south
west a OF section 81, township 3 n r. II west
is valuable for mlneI al OF any kind but is chiefly
valuable for agricultural purposes. and since the
homestead claimant has fully compiled with the
law and acted In good faith, we recommend that
his entry be not cancelled.