Fergus County argus. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1886-1946, 1903-10-14
Desert Land Entry canceled Because
Of a Failure to Make Annual
Proof at Right Time.
ANOTHER CONTEST DISMISSED
Contestant Fails to Establish Alleged
laches-Siekness May Justify a
Leave Of Absence.

cancelled desert land entry No. 116G
for a failure on the part of the entry.
nan to file her third annual proof
within the specified time or before
contest proceedings were filed.
Fannie Hassett filed the entry on
March 10, 1900. Her first and second
annual proofs were field within the
specified time but she failed to file
her third annual proof until June 5,
1903, where It should have been filed
by March 10th, of that year. On
March %. 1903, John II. Johnson. filed
an affidavit of contest alleging that
Claimant has wholly failed to com.
ply with the desert land laws, in that
she has failed to cultivate any of the
land, except to pillow about five acres.
She has not irrigated the same nor
any part thereof. She has no water
right or irrigation ditch for the irri.
cation thereof. and she has placed no
improvements thereon. That the an
nual proofs submitted were fraudu.
lent, and that no annual proof for the
year ending March 10, 1903, had been
field" The contest a heard June
4, 1903.
The decision, which is an import.
ant one to all persons who have filed
upon government land and have not
yet completed their annual proofs,
and also to those who intend to file up.
On land in the future, Is as follows:
Section 5. of the act of March 3,
lows: Said party shall file during
each year with the register proof, by
the affidavits of two or more credit.
able witnesses. that the full sum oil
one dollar per acre has been expended
in such necessary Improvements dur
ing each year, and the manner IN
which expended and at the expiration
of the third year a map, or plan, show
ing the character and extent of such
Improvements. II any party who has
made such application shall fail dur
ing any year to file the testimony
aforesaid. the land shall revert to the
United States and the entry shall be
cancelled
"In accordance with the foregoing
claimant should have filed her third
annual proof on or before March 10
1903. The records of this office show
that third annual proof was not filed
until June 5. 1903, after the filing Of
the affidavit of contest herein. alleg
ing that no annual proof for the yeaI
ending March 10, 1903. has beer
fled
Where there is no protest, adverse
claim or contest initiated against ar
entry, the question being simply one
between the government and claim
ant, the laches for filing proofs or an
nual representation within the statu
tory period twhere the work has beer
performed) are cured when the proofs
are filed within sixty days from the
receipt of notice to show cause. OF
previous to the filing of contest oil
protest.
But in the presence of a contest
brought an entry. alleging this de
fault, and 1t being shown by the evi
dence and the records that such de
fault exists, the requirements of the
statute being mandatory, and nc
cause being shown in the proceedings
why the land should o revert to the
government as provided by statute
we are of the opinion that desert LAND
entry No. l166 should be Cancelled
for noncompliance with the provis
ions of the fifth section of the act OF
March 3, 1901"
The second contest involved home
stead entry No. 1897, made June 10
1901, by Fannie Hassett. now Mrs
Fannie Palmer. On March 25, 1902
leave of absence was granted for one
year, ending March rs, 1903. An aft
davit of contest was filed by John II
Johnson, March 20. 1903, allegint
that claimant had never established
residence upon the land and does no
now reside thereon. That since max
ing said homestead entry she hat
married one Noah Palmer, but hal
lived at New Year mines in Fergu!
county, Montana, than n yea
last past"
The testimony Vas heard by thu
register and receiver June 3, 1903
The testimony was very confiictin;
but it appeared that the residence
was established upon the land Decem
Der /, 1901, in the dwelling claiman
and her husband had purchased. Tn,
decision held that owing TO the condi
ton of claimants husband. who wa
thrown from a horse and severely in
jured and that the attention which h
required from his wife. the claimant
was responsible for her laches, !
there were any, and she should be eS
cused. 1t was. therefore. the opinion
of the register and receiver that tn
claimant had complied with the pre-
visions of the homestead law and tn,
contest should be dismissed and tn
entry remain intact. In both cor
tests Harry II. Boggs was attorne.
for contestant, while David Hilger ar
1 nna rcd for tho claimant.