The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-10-04
HOMESTEAD LAW RULINGS.
CONTESTS DECIDED FROM SEATTLE
AND SPOKANE DISTRICTS.
Insufficient Declarations In Amdavh
Causes Rejection In One Case ana
Tardy Statement of Facts Pre-
vents Success In the other.


WASHINGTON, Oct. 3.-On April 10.
1897. Anthony zuber made homestead en-
try for the northeast quarter OF section
80, township Is north, range east, Seattle
land district On March G. 1899. Louis
Zuher filed an affidavit of contest against
the entry charging that Anthony Zuber
has wholly abandoned said tract and
changed his residence therefrum for more
than six months since making the entry;
that said tract is not settled upon ana
cultivated by said party as required by
law"
Notice was given by publication. but
Anthony Zuber failed to appear. at the
hearing. and. on August q. 1899, the local
officers transmitted TO the general land
office here the record In the case, with
recommendation that the entry be cam
celed. On April ?. 1900 q decision was
rendered by the land ofice, dismissing
the contest. on the ground that the con-
test affidavit failed TO allege that the
entrymau's absence was not due 10 his
enlistment IN the military or naval SER
vice of the United States in time Of war,
as required by the act Of June is; isss
Louis Zuber appealed from this decision.
assigning errors. and filed affidavit
charging abandonment. and alleging that
Anthony Zuber's absence from the land
was not due to his enlistment in the mill
tary and naval. service Of the United
States in time OF war. This affidavit Is
duly corroborated. and the contestant
asks that it be considered as an amend
ment to his original AFFIDAVIT OF contest.
and that the action may be considered as
one action. and date from the time of nj
ing his original complaint.
In concluding his resu.ne OF the case.
the secretary states that "the AFFIDAVIT
filed by the contestant with his appeal
would II filed in the local office, be suf-
ficient to initiate new contest against
the entry but II cannot be accepted as an
amendment to the original affidavit or as
an amended affidavit In the former con-
test wherein II Is held that compliance
ia mr. n
dispensed with by the land department.
nor can noncompliance thereof be cured
by amendment without service Of process
IN the contest to which the statute APP
plies and in which no appearance is made
by the defendant. +" The secretary affir-
med the commissioners decision in the
matter and returned him the papers.
From Spokane District.
The secretary Of the interior has sus-
tained the rejection OF homestead appti-
cation and closed the case OF Clinton
Hunt, INVOLVING the north half of north
east quarter and north half Of northwest
quarter of section %, township IL north,
range "A each. Spokane land district. as
this land had been patented to the North
ern Pacific Railroad Company prior to
Hunts application.
This trace was included In the lat of
selections filed by the company December
II. 1853 August 2. 1892. the company
designated as basis for this selection a
portion of the odd-numbered section with
In the primary limits of Its grant shown
by It's diagram on file and In use in the
land department AZ that time to be part
OF the Yakima Indian reservation and for
that reason excepted from its grant.
Tpon the final survey of the bounds OF
the reservation the tract designated by
the company as a basis for the selection
was found to be without the limits Of the
reservation and the company, on January
Is. 1896 substituted another tract as a
basis for the selection.
The department found that this last
SIffCtent
loss and the tract was ratented 10 the
contrary April q 1896 As Hunt aid not
tender his application until June rs. 1897
more than q year after the patenting OF
the tract 70 the railroad company, tho
department had TO reject his application,
ns i had no longer any jurisdiction over
the land
IN an affidavit accompanying his appeai
Hun, alleges that HIS father went into
possession Of this land In 1877 and contin-
ned to occupy and improve n until 1850.
when he transferred his improvements.
consisting OF ninety acres IT breaking and
a fence enclosing the entire tract, to the
present claimant, In the spring OF 1884.
building house unon the land In which
ne established a residence which no haa
continued to maintain. He further alleges
that during the spring of lsSa he rendered
arr application at the local land office 10
make prc-emption derlaratory statement
for this land. but what action was taken
thereon was nat shown. bit from the re-
port % the land office however II would
appear that this application WIS not pend
Ing at the time 81 the ratenting OF the
lard under the railroad grant.
The secretary. In RAISING uaon this ATM
davit states that "hsd the facts now al
legged hcen shown prior to the issue of
the patent under the railroad grant the
department would have been warranted IN
withholding approval Of the railroad Sc
lection. bar u di6 not believe that suit
for the recovery Of title could. under the
circumstances Of the case, be successfully
ma