The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-02-12
BorH GEE THEIR CLAIMS.
Decision Of the Ferry Finley Contest Il
Whatcom County Land.

Dcciaion Of the Ferry-Finley Contest 10
Whatcom County Land.
The contest OF Charles L. Ferry against
this homestead entry OF Robert e. Finley
has been adjudicated by the general land
office. so that the rights of each party
are maintained. according to the inter-
probation OF the department.
On November %. 1893, Robert Z. Finley
made homestead entry for lot and north
east quarter. southeast quarter, section IS
and lots and 4. section "a. township Il
north. range 5 east. located in whatcom
county near the British Columbia line.
claiming settlement since December %.
1890. On the same day Charles l. Ferry
executed his papers before the United
States commissioner OF the circuit court
for the same land ana also the northwest
quarter. southwest quarter. section ~, al
leging settlement July II, 1891.
A hearing was held March =, 1894 be-
fore the local ofiice to decide priority of
right. The decision was In favor OF Fer
ting Land Commissioner Bowers. in re-
viewing the evidence. says that John Fin
ley. the defendants brother. built shack
On lot In 1850 ans, siashed Ave or six
acres. and IN December. 1850. Robert Fin
ley became possessor through trade with
his brother. Drr.ag the winter of 1880 and
iSsi the brothers occupied cabin In Brit
ish Columbia. about half q mile distant
from the land. Continuing, he says:
''fn the spring OF 1881 Fsnigy claims 10
have established residence. but was ah-
seat most Of the time. a rreponderance OF
evidence showing that he never essab-
nshet residence prior 20 July II. 1881.
Ferry had knowNdge OF Fgaley's claim.
but thosght the land was open 10 settle
ment BY reason Of the latter's failure 10
establish residence. Under this belief he
establishes residence and lived on the
land untll September, isas. when be was
evicted. Finley having obtained .udg-
rHent tn the superior court Of whatcom
county
'"The survey shows that both defend
ants ana plaintiffs houses are on lot /
and that the plaintiffs improvements are
On lots 8 and {. ard that he has no I'm
provenents on section - II does not ap-
pear that any notice was given BY Ferry
to Indicate che boundaries OF hts claim.
Granting that Ferry first established a
bonA flie residence on lot I. II does not
follow that he had 3 superior right to any
lana 50 section g. embraced In the De-
PENDANTS easry. The piainsEr is limited
sn his c.atm TO the quarter section on
which be settles. Ee cannot hold lard
beyond the limit OF his quarter section
unless * In market by improvements OF
sufficient notice ss g:yen OF claim tAereto.
- nnd thar independent OF any question
as 10 ths DEFENDANTS bona fiie ressdencs
prior 10 Jsssr II. 1891. the date Of TIE
plaintiffs settlement. the defendant has a
superior right 20 the lard In section q
embraced IN his entry. and that your de-
casicn czncensng his entry should be saodi-
fed and his entry Se allowed to remain
Intact a. 20 los and northeast quarter.
southeast quarter. secticn o. In even. al
this decision hecorlng drsi ard Ferry
showing his qualifications Finiey's entsy