Fergus County argus. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1886-1946, 1897-04-14
HURvITcH VS.. ANDERSON.

hURtTICn vs.. |
Decision Of the Secretary Of the Interior In
This Hardly Contested Case.
Following is the decision of secre-
tary Bliss i'm the contest case of
Samuel Hurvitch vs. Sallie Anderson,
the result of which appeal from the
commissioners decision was noted
last week. As before stated the Sec
rotary suatains the local office and
as this was the only ase i'm which
the commissioner disagreed from the
local officers, the latter's record is
now clear. This decision is thought
to have been one of the first. if not
the first, handed down by the new
secretary. Mr.. Bliss says, addressing
the commissioner:
Sir: This case involves land known
as the swA of the nwK, and nwA of
the swA, of sec. IL, Il. 10 n. II. q f.
Lewistown Land district i'm the State
of Montana.
The record shows that Sallie An
dersOn made homestead entry jan
uary II, 1895, for lot 8, Sec. s, lots 3,
6, Z, and s, Sec. IL and the above de-
scribed land.
January "a, 1895, Samuel Hurvitcll
made application to enter under the
same law the land i'm controversy,
together with the ~ of the neA, of
g.. 10 ,. s. a, r
At the same time he filed his affidavit
of contest, alleging prior settlement.
A hearing having pee had to- de-
termine the conflicting right of the
parties to this cause, on March 20,
1895, the local officers rendered their
decision i'm which they recommended
the cancellation of the entry of An
derson for the land in conflict, and
that the same be awarded to the
contestant. An appeal having been
taken from this recommendation of
the local officers, to your office, n de-
cision was rendered October 81, 1895,
reversing the action of the local off
GERS in so far as it awarded the swA
Of the nwA to Hurvitch.
The land is within the limits of a
reservation established by executive
order of April 5, 1881, which was sub
sequently, to wit, Oh April IA, 1882,
modified and lessened but still in
cluded the tracts i'm controversy.
This reservation was known as the
Fort Maginnis Reservation.
M. .-su.As- g. al L..
the contestant was under the act OF
congress of August %, 1884 (2S Stat.
491) being an act to provide for the
opening of certain abandoned mill
tary reservations. The reservation
was turned over to this department
by executive order of August 6, 1880,
for disposition under h act of con-
gress of July 5, 1884 (23 Stat, 1O3).
Instructions under the act OF
August %, 1894, supra were received
by the local officers january II, 1895,
and it appears from the evidence
that notice that entries might be
made was first published January II,
following.
BY the act of August %, 1894, u
preference right of entry for six
months was given to bona fide set.
tiers upon the reservation. The en-
tryman claims settlement from the
middle of October 1891. The con
testant alleges settlement July 1880
i The evidence shows that Hurvitch
settled at the time he alleged, having
purchased the improvements of one
of the companies stationed on
the reservation. The most of his i'm.
: prOvements are upon the nwA of the
swh, but some of them are upon the
swA of the nwH. His residence has
been, i'm the main, continuous, and ht
has in several seasons raised abund.
ant crops.
/ The claimant alleges residence In
the house belonging to her father
Resin Anderson, claimed to be situated
upon the line dividing his entry and
lot . of her entry, by living in the
: east room. The house lies nearly
east and west. 1t does not clearly
, appear that the east DON is on lO1
o, but ~conceding that it does, and
that separate residence may be main
tanned by an unmarried woman in a
room given her by her father, which
is a part OF his dwelling house, L can.
not concnr i'm the decision of YOU
Office. There is nc evidence submit.
I ted by the claimant showing cultiva
: ton of any of the land included in
her entry, or, if any, then certainly il
did not extend beyond the limits ot
; lot 9, in section s.
, 1t is n familiar doctrine of the de.
. partment, which needs no citation,
that the notice given by settlement
does not extend beyond the technical
; quarter section upon which such set.
Element is made. The land i'm con
~troversy, is in section II, the remain
der of the lots covered by the entry
, are in the same section. The de
fendant has done nothing on the
land in controversy that would
serve as notice that she claimed ii
, under the homestead law. 1t is in.
teresting to note that Julia Ander-
son sister of the claimant also proved
upon a homestead using the house
of Rezin Anderson as her dwelling
though by the representations now
made it is clear that this house was
not situated upon any of the land
covered by her entry.
1t having been found that the de-
PENDANT had no improvements upon
the land in controversy and that she
resided in a different quarter section