Fergus County argus. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1886-1946, 1904-01-27
CONTESTANT WINS.
Register and Receiver Submit Decis-
ion Involving D. L. e. No. 2217.

The register and receiver of the
u. S. land office at this place last
Wednesday submitted their decision
in the contest case involving desert
land entry O. 2217. The land involved
in the controversy is situated on Sand
creek, three miles up the Missouri
river from the ~postoffice of Wilder,
supposed to be in township 81 n, r
2S e. NJ. NJ. The entry for the land
was made by Charles w. Tyler,
March %. 1903. On June %, 1908,
Daniel Sturman filed affidavit of o n
test against the entry, alleging that
long previous to the filing of desert
land entry No. 22l7, he vas in posses
sion of the land and had improved 1t
with an ice house, corral and two and
a half miles of fence, all of the value
of about 5000: that said tract was
held and claimed by affiant as his
homestead and has been so held and
claimed since the first of October.
1901; that zone Of the land is desert
in character; that all of the land
would produce good paying crops Of
vegetables. hay and grain without ar
tificial irrigation in amounts suffici-
emily remunerative; that there is at
least twenty acres of thick and heavy
growth of timber upon said land. The
contest was heard August 3, 1903. +.
Z. Smith and David Hilger appeared
as attorneys for the claimant and S.
w. Pennock and F. F. MacGowan as
attorneys for the contestant.
The claimant TxyIAr onA bic usttnnSc.
es testified when he filed his entry,
that the land embraced therein was
desert; that there were no trees grow
ing on said land; that it had been
hitherto unappropriated, unoccupied
and unsettled. because it had been
impossible to cultivate it successfully
on account of its dry and arid condi.
ton. The testimony brought out that
the land in controversy was settled
upon in the fall of 1901 by c. B. Stur.
man and family. Contestant left the
land for a few months in 1902 while
he was freighting and working for
wages in Lewistown, but that he re.
turned in April, 1908, and put in a
crop.
After reviewing the testimony the
register and receiver rendered the
following decision:
IF the land in contest was occu'
pied. cultivated and improved by a
bona fide settler. qualified to make a
homestead entry when surveyed
whose act of settlement was so open
and notorious as to give notice to the
public generally of the extent Of his
claim, the land in controversy was
not subject to entry under the desert
land act.
There can be no doubt from the
testimony submitted that there were
improvements upon the land worth
between three and six hundred dol
lars at the initiation of the desert en-
try of Tyler and that the land hat
been occupied and cultivated fol
years.
"A settler upon unsurveyed land Il
required to reside upon, cultivate ant
improve his claim in accordance will
requirements of the homestead law IL
order to hold il. While contestant
residence thereon does not appear Il
have been continuous during the yea
1902. we are of the opinion that thu
occupancy. cultivation and improve
ments of the tract, as shown by thu
evidence submitted, is sufficient Il
preclude its entry under the deser
land act, and that, therefore. deser
land entry No. 2217 should be cancel
ed"