The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-09-21

\ Piece of Land L pom Which Porter
ned ~crIp Cannon BE Locatea.


Ju5g@ JOAN " Reynol3s. acting sec-e-
,4ry q he interior. aAs rendered an m
T'oTt2nf 1ee3s.oa involving valuable lands
az9o-n-ng Et.-s city.
TIE case vas that az a \ Hosmsr
against a A Dszzy e al. @ appeal %
-l@ FORMER from the decision Of me com
missioner OF tse genera. ana 0ff1c=. re-
2-7t-1ns fsosmers application 20 locate
FFr.eT1ek1 scrip upon a certain Irzc. %
lAa9 alleged 10 De locatel between Tia
meAnaer A1e oE Donation claim No. a.
patented % Arthur A. Denny. zn5 SAe
tc"nSEip Cean3er line 81 Eliot, bar. y
ire Seattle land District
On JAY l. is>@ HosTner. the claimant.
maze ilas Application % oe allowed % 10
cSle For tsrEele scrip Ea~raa. No , uTs2n
the land n controversy. On July q. Isss.
t2e local offers rejected MS application
On I-e following grounds,
There Is I'D szleA ,rac- - land shown
OF re records Of tals Office As public
lands u tAe United STATES
That = there IS suca 4 -ract ot and x
= lot surveyed public lana CT the United
states. and therefore not subject I. ioca-
ton q the class or scrip known ss FSr-
ierfiel1 SCRIP.
said tract IS occupied land within re
corporate limits % The cry e Seattle.
4n1 therefore ncs subject . me location
o this class o. scrip described
2
s1oner of me general Land o-.iee OF jane
;, tes'. the commissioner affirmed ne
Judgment OF ne register and receiver.
HosneT appealed % The depart ulent. On
Ja-y 3, lSS1, the department. found that
mere are interested parties IN posses
son OF ;Ae land Il controversy who
have lad no notice % Hosuer-s aDp.8ca-
i4on. and directed shat d second hearing
oe ordere1 20 determine the true status
q tae la.1 applied for. Nth notlce %
Denny ard All parties IN interest and n
possession OF The land
! hearing vas he'd before The register
and receiver. A A. Denny ~ answer -
ftosi1leTs application ststgi that Re Mas
t1r peTsoa MO loca.ed. made PROOF ana
received patent - donation entry No -
Which Included the Land IN controversy.
taaI 4 Was not surveyed public lard AMI
nor on the records o. the land ofs5ce AZ
Sea,fie. and tA2t i was Tlth5n he coTp0-
rae limits u the city Of Seattle. occupied.
ard taat extensive Improvements have
been made On L il ala OF commerce ant
aavlsation. He further alleged ownership
n Zee n certain iots in the city q Seattle
which are included In 2 portion Of the
tract covered hy H0smer'S application.
TIA register ard receiver rejected Hos
mer's application and he again appealed
= nc commissioner. who az Decenlsser
iS ls-i. affirmed the judgment ~ the local
meat
In his opinion Jusge Reynolds states
that the Only real. material question 10 be
determined Is whether under the law and
fasts disclosed IN the record Hosoaer has
he right % locate his Por-erfels s,r5n
upon the land described IN his application.
He quotes ths act az cor gresS un der whica
th. Po-teFneld scrip was issued. and states
that Ire claim % ire counsel for appfca :
that discrepancies between rhe original
s-rTsy - he township IN fS55 ard the sur
veg ~ DennyS Donation cia5rn of $50
amount % q government survey q TIE
Land IN question. This contention, Judge
Reynolds SAYS. - not well ,aken No such
tract. lot or parcel. ar other legal S1}~1. r.
VISION e lana. appears on The original
;owas4 pat. AMI = does 70. appsa- on
tae Ierny survey Is sucA lot OF other legal
sab1s 1si9o q nablic Lands N facr, g.
cc.l8 10. properly 81 appear on the pat
Of 'al authority % such survey was con-
~re1 10 marking TIRE Boundaries q
iee.cys donation claim ant conforming
MS l-es ss nearly ~ practicable - the
tasn existing townslte surveys.
Your ofScc" savS Judge Reynolds 81
BIS letter 20 me coTurni ssfonar. held IN
fae decision appealed from that the land
applied fa~ is nor public .sus that Il o.
c5fTe5 TIE position 90 tt7e lands on
Fslotts hay and passed n the state 81
Washington un*er the doctrine announced
le Ear1l1 ys. Jordan. 80 Z. < 1sn. au3
othe~ authorities = well a. under Frank
Blr.s - T. n 81 I concur in Your
reasoning. bu- - t1e same -inae prefer -
reSt INV Decision up0n fhe fact thaf the
lard applied foT s. not surveyed public
Lard ana therefore urda~ me law Hos
uner cannot ~ permitted - locate Porter
9s'5 s-rla thereon f35s application = as
missed ard yoar ofsce decision appealed
.rnrn 5 II q -