Amador ledger., 1902-01-24
The Recheniello-Molfno Land Case.

The contested homestead case of A.
Recheniello VS.. Victorio Molfino has
been decided by the secretary OF the
interior in favor of the contestant
Rechenielo. The case was heard
before the register and receiver of the
Sacramento land office in June, 1900.
The taking of testimony occupied three
days. r. Webb appeared for the con-
testant, and E. A. Roberts for the
homestead claimant. The points re-
lied upon by the contestant we're that
the homesteader had not made any
bona fide residence upon or improve
ment of the land as required by the
homestead law. His residence and cul-
tivation of the tract were shown to be
merely technical and not in good faith.
He cut from IS to 100 cords of wood,
and constructed roads for the purpose
of getting this wood to market. The
local land Office decided the case in
favor of the contestant. An appeal
was taken to the commissioner of the
general land Office, and that Office in
November last affirmed the decision of
the Sacramento office. Not satisfied
with this an appeal was taken to the
tribunal of last resort in such cases,
the secretary of the interior Very
few land cases from AmadOr county
have bocn appealed to the final arbitra-
tion of the head of the land depart
ment. On the 22d of November, the
secretary rendered his decision af
irming the judgment of the commits
sioner. The decision says:
It is clearly shown from the testi-
mony that Molfino never at any time
established and maintained a bona fide
residence on the land. Witnesses liv-
ing in the neighborhood testified that
the cabin was not built until about
year after the entry was made and that
after it was built it was not occupied by
any one, except for a time by an
italian od-chopper; that Molfno
never lived in the cabin as home aud
never made any improvements on the
land of any value or Importance. The
opportunities of these witnesses were
such that it would not have been pos
sible for defendant to have resided on
the land for any material length of
time without their knowledge of it.
1t also appears from the testimony of
contestants witnesses that fire went
through the land and after that the
defendant cut and sold cord wood from
the tract, which was cut from where
the trees were largest and from which
it could be most easily hauled, without
regard to the cultivation and clearing
of the land.
The positive testimony of the con-
testant's witnesses is not overcome by
any satisfactory proof showing that de-
fendant ever established and maintain
ed bona fide residence on the tract,
and no sufficient reason OR excuse is
shown for his failure to do so. No act
on his part was shown Indicative of an
intent to comply with the homestead
law, but the testimony rather tends to
show that he was holding the claim
for the profits he might reap from the
sale of the wood. Even conceding that
he built the cabin within four months
after his entry, as he testified, and that
he placed in it household furniture,
groceries, and other provisions, he
does not show even from his own testi-
mOny that he occupied it as home
nor is there any circumstance from
which an intent can be gathered. He
says that he was never absent from the
tract for more than month at any
time but he admits that he ate and
slept at his fathers oftener than he
did on the homestead, and that he
could not say how many times he had
slept on the claim. The weight of evil
dence shows that his absence from the
tract was the rule and not the eXcep-
ton, and that his real home was with
his father, who lived between one and
two miles from the claim. The de-
fendant kept most OF his clothing at
his fathers, and also his stock, except
his cows that ranged over the home
stead with cattle belonging to others.
There is not only sufficient evidence
to warrant the finding of the local Of
fcers, which was affirmed by your Of
flee, that the claimant never at any
time resided upon or cultivated the
homestead in good faith, or in a man
ner contemplated by the homestead
law, but such finding is supported by
the weight of evidence.
Your decision is affirmed and the
papers herewith returned.
Very respectfully.
E. A. HITCHCOCK,