The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1898-03-31
Important Question Raised In the
Eureka Townsite Contests.
PUBLICATION OF NOTICE
ALLEGED THAT ENTRY WAS NOT
PROPERLY MADE.
Motion to Dismiss Contest Denied
By the Court, But the Question
Will Be Carried Up to the Su-
preme Court-Several Contests
Decided.

iFrom The Herald's Correspondents.)
Nephi, March 3O.-The first Eureka
townsite case called in the district
court this morning was that of Pat
]. Holland VS.. Elizabeth Buchanan,
Judge Powers and Attorney Pike ap-
bearing for Holland, whose applica-
ton for his lot stated that he had gone
upon the ground in 1895, while on the
part of Mrs. Buchanan it was claimed
she and her predecessors had entered
upon the lot before the date of entry
fixed by the supreme court, Jan. %,
1891.
At the outset of the case Judge Pow
ers moved TO dismiss, on the ground
that the court had no jurisdiction
whatever over the subject matter OF
the parties to the action, for the reason
that the provisions of law relative 10
the posting or publishing OF notce
within so days after the entry of the
sownsite had not been complied with,
and that said publication or posting
was mandatory and prerequisite be
fore the court could acquire jurisdiction
to hear and determine these toWnSlte
cases.
In support of the motion to dismiss,
the records of the probate court OF
.Juab county were offered in evidence,
the county in 1891, was placed upon the
stand. The evidence showed no record
or knowledge of the posting or publish
ing of any such notice to claimants IN
1891 and the argument was to the ef-
feet that the date of entry OF the
townsite having been established by
the supreme court as of Jan. %, 1891,
that The failure to post or publish the
notice had allowed innocent parties TO
come in on the ground, build their
homes and make their Improvements
without having had such notice as Is
contemplated and required by the law.
In passing upon the motion the court
said he would take the state of facts
existing into consideration. The notice
required TO be published must contain
an accurate description of the land
entered and that description must
necessarily be taken from the final
receipt issued from the land office, so
that the publication Of notice must
refer to a period after the issuance of
the final receipt. The court knew OF ITS
own knowledge that such a notice had
been published and his honor believed
that would be sufficient. 1t would also
follow that these applications for lots
would then be filed in time (that Is,
within the six months after the publ
cation of notice to claimants). The
court overruled the motion to dismiss.
testimony WAS luell ldhtn dlAu liiC
application of Holland was refused, as
his application failed to show that he
was on the ground on Jan. %, 1891, and
the Buchanan application was referred
to the master in chancery for further
proof.
The case will be taken up to the
supreme court as a test case of the
rights of intervening claimants who
have entered upon the Eureka townsite
since Jan. %. 1891, and who, under the
recent decision of the supreme court,
have no rights as against the town
site. AS there is a great number Of
such claimants the case possesses much
interest to the people of Eureka, going
as it does to the validity of the very
foundation OF the entire tOwnsite pro-
ceedings from their inception.
The application of Mrs. P. Bonner
was dismissed and the application OF
Mrs. Sarah A. AIcChrystal was referred
to the master in chancery for proof.
In the case of Joseph Schlecht VS..
Hathaway estate, that was heard yes
terday, the court held the matter under
Amusement as to the rights of the
heirs. Schlecht having purchased the
property from Mrs. Halfway.