The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-03-18
! SECTION OF LAND
SUPREME COURT PASSES ON THE
MEANING OF THE TERM.
Mandsmus Against the Land Commits
soner Granted on the Prayer OF
Aszelwood and Others.

Austin. Texas, March 1.-THE supreme
cour today handed down au opinion in the
mandamus case Of Hazelwood ct al y,
Land Commissioner Rogan
This Is the case In which the land com.
missioner construed the word section as APP
plying to piece Of land which contained
several acres less than the required $40
acres.
Hszelwood resided on lVO acres OF land
and applied for -four additional sections
as additional laud. one OF the sections M.
Piled for contained ,rine loss than $50
acres aud together with his home section
he wCul, have had nearly four sections II
laud With the full 6i0 acres each TAc M.
pltcndon was rejected by the commissioner
for the reason that ne construed the AS
acre tract TO be fun section under the
law. The court sustains the commissioner
on this construction Of The law, but awards
three sections of the land to uazclwood
The opinion by Chief Justice Gaines Goa.
ciEdes AZ follows: I'VE conclude that ,he
relatOr was entitled to purchase the three
sections hrst applied for but not the
fourth. and upon the whole case the writ
Of mandamus should be awarded TO sections
@, io1 ana 50, but should be refused 20
section S. Tie land Is In Klmble count;
Messrs. Newton & ward, attorneys OF
San Antonio, Will fle an application this
week IL the supreme court for "A writ Of
pnndamus against Land Commissioners
Charles Rogsn for the Colquett-Tlgnor Min.
Ing company 10 compel the commissioner
to accept the patent fec and Issue hnll
payment receipt oil mining claim consist
,ag of twcuty-one acres Of land In Brew.
ster county
The commissioner declines 10 receive and
filc the hnal payment receipt or To acccps
the patent fee and Issue patent 10 the ar
pllcant for the reason thar since the lie
cision in the case of SchindeU vs. Rognp 4
Is doubtful II patent can legally issue for
any mircra' claims on land which has not
teen designated as mineral bearing by mo
geological and meteorological survey.
Mr. II. II Ward, p member NJ said frm
was in Austin Saturday 10 see TOO commits
stoner for the purpose of procuring patent
on said claim and the formal tender and
declination viii he made this week at
which time the application for writ ~
maudamus will he hled This claim was
regularly located and filed upon in 1897 aul
sll assessment work required ny law has
| been made since then, AZ tho time of iAs
location In 1897 the claim was duly fled
I In tho land office and recognized ms n valid
claim. and so noted upon tho official map
In the general land office. although the laul
a that time was classified rs grazing land
and valued ~ 81 per acre This is cinnt.
har mine and " sold aS such will he sold nj
Se5 per acre. and the commissioner declines
to soil II either as grazing or mineral lard
/ until he has more definite nformGtionsas 10
! how II should he sold This is tho case
/ which was mentioned some time ago in
| The Post.
! The following proceedings were had In
| the supreme court today:
Reversed and remandcd r. . Tension
| vs. r. G. Patton et nj. from Dallas; A. \,
! Ablowich VS.. Greenvillc National RanS,
! from Hunt
! Affirmed Cult Colorado and Santa Fe
Railway Company et al vs. James CuShney,
! from Mitchell.
Mandamus awarded in part and in part
! refused: p. w. Hazolwood vs. Charles
Rogan. commissioner, ct al.
! Certified questions set for April "a r.
/ G. Lass VS.. Adolph Scldc from Austin
Dewitt Countv ct al vs. Henry Wischken
per. froui Dewitt.
Reset for March "a: Fort Worth and Rio
Grapdr Railway Company vs., W T. Bowen
from rarrant.